LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 





Chap. Copyright Nol 

Shell--!™. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



< 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST 
HISTORY: 



WHETHER THE ANABAPTISTS IN ENGLAND PRAC- 
TICED IMMERSION BEFORE THE YEAR 1641? 



WITH AN APPENDIX 

ON THE BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS, AT 
PROVIDENCE, R. I., IN 1639. 



WILLIAM H. WHITSITT, tr - 

PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 



LOUISVILLE, KY. 



LOUISVILLE, KY.:. 

CHAS. T. DEARING 




<$& 






Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1896, by 

WM. H. WHITSITT, 

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 



TO F. W. W. 
'AND SHE'S A' THE WORLD TO ME. 



INTRODUCTORY. 



The question does not relate to the origin of im- 
mersion. Immersion as a religions rite was prac- 
ticed by John the Baptist about the year 30 of our 
era, and was solemnly enjoined by our Savior upon 
all his ministers to the end of time. No other ob- 
servance was in use for baptism in New Testament 
times. The practice, though sometimes greatly 
perverted, has yet been continued from the Apostolic 
age down to our own. As I understand the Scriptures 
immersion is essential to Christian baptism. The 
question as to the origin and essential character of im- 
mersion is, therefore, not in issue. That is a closed 
question; it does not admit of being opened among 
Baptist people. 

The issue before us is far different, namely: 
Whether the immersion of adult believers was prac- 
ticed in England by the Anabaptists before the year 
1641? Whether these English people first adopted 
immersion for baptism and thus became Baptists in 
or about the year 1641? 

This is purely a question of modern historical 
research. It does not affect any items of Baptist 
principle or practice. These are all established 
upon the Bible. Our watchword for generations 
has been, "The Bible, the Bible alone, the religion 



6 INTRODUCTORY. 

of Baptists ! " It is now too late in the day to alter 
our views and set forth any new battle cry. Bap- 
tists have always maintained that "the Scriptures of 
the Old and New Testaments were given by inspir- 
ation of God, and are the only sufficient, certain and 
authoritative rule of all saving knowledge, faith and 
obedience." Other foundation can no man lay. 
Whoever attempts it must inevitably fall into error. 
Let us stand by the old landmarks: let us walk in 
the old paths. 

Several persons have undertaken original investi- 
gation at the British Museum to decide where the 
truth may lie in reference to this question. I had 
the honor to be of this number. My researches 
were prosecuted in the summer of 1880. The re- 
sults of them are contained in a body of manuscript 
notices and extracts derived from various volumes, 
most of them found in that collection in the Museum 
which goes under the name of the King's Pamphlets. 

A brief account of King George's Pamphlets may 
be recorded here. These were brought together by 
the royalist bookseller, George Thomason. When 
the Long Parliament assembled in the year 1640 
there was a sensible relaxation of the authority both 
of Church and State in England. By consequence 
the public press was immediately employed by all 
sorts of people to a much larger extent than had 
been possible hitherto. Publications of every kind 
came teeming from it. About the year 1641 Mr. 



INTRODUCTORY. 7 

Thomason conceived the idea of preserving these 
for the uses of history, and he began by collecting; 
as many as he could lay his hands on from the pre- 
ceding year. His enterprise was continued un- 
weariedly for more than twenty years, down to the 
year 1662. Being himself a bookseller, and situated 
at the center of London trade, he enjoyed facilities 
that could scarcely be improved upon. Few publica- 
tions of any sort escaped his attention. His mate- 
rials were duly arranged in chronological order, and 
he was careful in most instances to inscribe with ink 
upon the title page the date on which the respective 
works appeared, together with indications regarding 
the authorship wherever the same might be known 
to him. They constitute a large library, and are 
unrivaled sources for the history of that period. 

Thomason's collection remained in a measure un- 
protected from the year 1662, when the work ceased, 
down to the year 1762, at which time it was pur- 
chased by King George III. for three hundred 
pounds and presented to the British Museum, and 
therefore was named in his honor. It has been 
accessible to scholars for 134 years. 

Another investigator was Rev. Henry Martyn 
Dexter, D.D., of Boston, Massachusetts, one of the 
foremost authorities for original research in the de- 
partment of church history that has yet appeared in 
America. He spent "some days" at the Museum, 
for this purpose in the winter of 1880-81, and gath- 
ered the fruits of his labors into a volume entitled, 



8 INTRODUCTORY. 

"The True Story of John Smyth, the Se-Baptist, 
told by Himself and his Contemporaries. " This work 
which appeared in the month of December, 1881, is 
of the highest importance. Though I had reached 
the conclusion that immersion was introduced into 
England in the year 1641, and publicly announced 
the same in September, 1880, I cheerfully concede 
the high merits of Dr. Dexter. He uniformly ex- 
hibits the best kind of learning, great thoroughness 
and patient accuracy. Moreover, at the time when 
he gave himself to this particular labor, he had 
enjoyed wide experience in the business of original 
historical research, and his acquaintance with the 
library of the British Museum was extensive and 
valuable. 

Numbers of the citations which I had sought out 
in the year 1880. and which 1 still retain in manu- 
script form, I found reproduced in an independent 
fashion by Dr. Dexter in 1881. Likewise he fell 
upon a good many passages that I had not seen. 
In setting forth the facts of the case at this time 
I shall make use of the researches of this admirable 
scholar as well as of my own. It is my purpose to 
accord to him the fullest credit for all that he has 
done; therefore, when citations shall be given, no 
mention will be made of him in case they are de- 
rived from my own manuscript collections. But in 
every instance where they shall be taken from his 
volume mentioned above, that fact will be definitely 
stated. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



REGENT INVESTIGATIONS IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

THE earliest author of note in this department of 
research is Thomas Crosby, who published a 
History of the English Baptists in four volumes, 
London, 1738-40. It is a work of real merit in 
many directions, and of the first importance to every 
student of Baptist history. Mr. Crosby was fol- 
lowed by Rev. Isaac Backus with a History of New 
England, with particular Reference to the Denom- 
ination of Christians called Baptists. Three vols., 
Boston, 1777-1796. He is in every sense the equal 
of his predecessor, and in some respects may be al- 
lowed to have gone beyond him. Rev. Joseph 
Ivimey next appears with a history of the English 
Baptists. Four vols., London, 1811-1830. The 
•first two volumes are largely dependent upon Cros- 
by, who covers most of the period occupied by them; 
nevertheless it is a praiseworthy performance, and 
has always been received with favor. The next work 
was by Rev. David Benedict, D.D., entitled A Gen- 
eral History of the Baptist Denomination in Amer- 
ica and Other Parts of the World. Two vols., Bos- 



10 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

ton, 1813. Another edition, almost entirely rewrit- 
ten, was issued at New York in 1848. Both of 
these are indispensable for American Baptist his- 
tory. 

These authors one and all have rendered impor- 
tant services, but owing to circumstances over which 
they had no control, none of them had access to the 
important documents illustrating the movement un- 
der Smyth, Helwys and Murton, which are pre- 
served in the archives of the Mennonite church at 
Amsterdam, in Holland. They accomplished all 
that was in their power, when one considers the sit- 
uation they occupied. They deserve the heartiest 
recognition and gratitude. It would be unreason- 
able to expect them to achieve impossible things. 
Subsequent generations, who enjoyed facilities and 
information that were beyond the reach of these ex- 
cellent students, made progress beyond the point 
that had been attained by their researches; but that 
progress would not have been possible without the 
foundations which they had laid. 

In 1851 the works of John Robinson, pastor of 
the Pilgrim Fathers, with a memoir and annota- 
tions by R. Ashton, in three volumes, were pub- 
lished at London and Boston. The learned editor 
(vol. 3, p. 161) gave utterance to the following state- 
ment: '"It is rather a singular fact that zealous as 
were Mr. Smyth and his friends for believers' bap- 
tism, and earnest as were their opponents in behalf 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 11 

of infant baptism, the question of the mode of bap- 
tism was never mooted by either party. Immersion 
baptism does not appear to have been practiced or 
pleaded for by either Smyth or Helwys, the alleged 
founder of the General Baptist Denomination in 
England. Nothing appears in these controversial 
writings to warrant the supposition that they regard- 
ed immersion as the proper and only mode of ad- 
ministering that ordinance. Incidental allusions 
there are in their own works and in the replies of 
Kobinson that the baptism which Mr. Smyth per- 
formed on himself must have been rather by affusion 
or pouring." (Evans, vol. 1, p. 203.) The result 
obtained by Mr. Ashton was mainly of the negative 
sort, but that a man of his ability and research 
should suggest doubts that the baptism employed 
by Smyth and Helwys could have been anything else 
than immersion was matter for sober reflection. 

Still no decided progress in this investigation 
was possible without the co-operation and assist- 
ance of Mennonite scholars. Smyth and Helwys 
resided at Amsterdam at the time when their move- 
ment was set on foot, and it was from that quarter 
alone that reliable information could be procured 
about their manner of conducting it. The Men- 
nonite church with which they both had intimate- 
relations was endowed with the historic sense, 
and had preserved in her archives a number of 
invaluable documents concerning this business*. 



12 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

For a long season Mennonite scholars had not dis- 
played any lively curiosity on this topic, for the 
reason that when immersion was adopted in Eng- 
land in 1641 the previous intimate connections with 
their English brethren were entirely broken off, and 
had never been restored. 

When Rev. B. Evans, D.D., was preparing his 
work, entitled Early English Baptists, 2 vols., London, 
1862 and 1864, he first broke the ice and succeeded 
in engaging the interest and assistance of Prof. S. 
Muller, of the Mennonite College at Amsterdam, a 
man of the highest character for learning and probity. 
No person of the former generation appears to have 
been more influential or honored among that excel- 
lent body of Christians in Holland. A singular in- 
cident is that Dr. Dexter (Congregationalism, p. 
636, note 42), who is commonly so exact in his 
statements, should confound him with Fred. Muller; 
Prof, de Hoop Scheffer, who knew him far more in- 
timately, calls him "the professor S. Muller" (De 
Brownisten, p. 128, note 2), an entirely different 
and more important personage. 

Prof. Muller entered into the archives of the Men- 
nonite church, and bringing forth a number of doc- 
uments that had not been disturbed perhaps for two 
hundred years, translated them and sent them to Dr. 
Evans, who published them in the Early English 
Baptists, vol. 1, pp. 209-224, and pp. 244-272; vol. 
2, pp. 21-51. Here was indeed an inestimable 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 13' 

treasure. Dr. Evans did not understand very welt 
what use to make of it; but he placed the world un- 
der lasting obligations by merely inserting it in his 
book. It was impossible to put off for any consid- 
erable period a better knowledge of the facts after 
that great light had appeared. 

That Prof. Muller, whose name sounded well 
among scholars in every part of the continent, 
should give his splendid authority to the statement 
(Evans, vol. 1, p. 223) that neither "the Waterland- 
ers, nor any other of the various parties of the Neth- 
erland Doopsgezinden practiced at any time baptism 
by immersion," was likewise a revelation to many 
students. Moreover, the dazed and uncertain con- 
dition in which the mind of Dr. Evans was thrown 
was much remarked upon. He could take no 
definite position, but sometimes was inclined to the 
notion that immersion was introduced into England 
long after the time of Smyth, and then "speedily 
became the rule with both sections of the Baptist 
community." (Yol. 2, p. 79.) 

With all his manifest defects, it was Evans 
who laid the foundations of the new learning in Bap- 
tist history ,by procuring access to the archives of 
the Mennonite church. After that had occurred, it 
was only a question of time when additional study 
of these sources of information should diffuse addi- 
tional light. 

The Quaker author, Kobert Barclay, next appeared 



14 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

with the well-known work entitled The Inner Life 
of the Keligious Societies of the Commonwealth, 
London, 1876, in which he founded upon the docu- 
ments published by Evans, and leaned upon the arm 
of Prof. J. G. de Hoop Scheffer, the distinguished 
successor of Prof. S. Muller, who had been the co- 
laborer of Dr. Evans. The chief advance made by 
Barclay consisted in fixing a precise date for the in- 
troduction of immersion into England. He says, 
Inner Life, p. 73: "The practice of immersion ap- 
pears to have been introduced in England on the 
12th of September, 1633." The work of Dr. Dex- 
ter, Congregationalism as Seen in its Literature, 
New York, 1880, pp. 318 f., note 108, occupies the 
same position as Barclay, citing and approving his 
statement to the effect that immersion "seems to 
have been introduced into England, 12 September, 
1633." 

The information that immersion had been intro- 
duced into England on the 12th of September, 1633, 
was derived from Prof, de Hoop Scheffer. This po- 
sition was called in question by the late Dr. Under- 
bill, of London, and the Dutch scholar was there- 
upon compelled to defend himself, a task in which 
he so far succeeded that Barclay allowed the state- 
ment to appear in his volume as cited above, whence 
it was carried over almost in the same words by 
Dexter, whose work appeared in the summer of 
1880. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 15 

In September, 1880, I moved up the figures just 
<eight years, announcing, and proving, in the New 
York Independent for September 2 and 9, that im- 
mersion was introduced into England, not in the year 
1633, but in the year 1641. Many builders are re- 
quired to construct a house, and the work can be per- 
formed only by slow degrees. This period of eight 
years is my personal contribution to the recent ad- 
vance in a more accurate knowledge of Baptist history. 

It was an English Baptist historian who laid the 
foundations of the new learning in Baptist history, 
but English Baptist scholars have kept holiday in 
this department ever since his volumes left the press. 
With such ample collections as the British Museum, 
the Bodleian and other libraries lying just under 
their noses, it has seemed a sad hardship that in all 
these years they did not lift a finger to aid in the 
labor of investigating original sources. The quiet 
composure with which they have rested in tradition- 
al views that had been exploded and discredited by 
Evans would be amusing if it were not lamentable. 
A generation has passed away since 1862, and yet the 
only English production in Baptist history that has 
come to the attention of the general public has been the 
fraud at Epworth, Crowle and West Butterwick, 
that brings blushes to the cheeks of intelligent Bap- 
tist people in all parts of the world. 

The conclusion that immersion was first intro- 
duced into England in 1611 was conveyed to Prof. 



16 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

de Hoop Scheffer in a private letter dated Septem- 
ber 21, 1879. In a reply that lie sent me on the 
28th of November, he assured me that after much 
patient investigation he had accepted my view of the 
subject. Moreover, in the early portion of 1881, a 
few months after I had returned from London and 
publicly announced the results of my researches, 
this incomparable scholar forwarded the first work 
that appeared in print giving distinct support to my 
thesis. It was entitled, De Brownisten te Am- 
sterdam, Gedurende den Eersten Tijd na Hunne 
Yestiging, in Yerband met het Ontstaan van de 
Broederschap der Baptisten. Bijdrage van J. G. 
de Hoop Scheffer. Overgedrukt uit de Yerslagen 
en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van 
Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, 2de Reeks, 
Deel X. Amsterdam, Johannes Mueller, 1881. 

(The Brownists at Amsterdam, During the First 
Period After Their Settlement, in Connection with 
the Origin of the Brotherhood of the Baptists. Con- 
tribution by J. G. de Hoop Scheffer. Printed from 
the Memoirs and Communications of the Royal 
Academy of Sciences, Department of Literature, 
Second Series, Part X. Amsterdam, Johannes 
Mueller, 1881.) 

To find that my researches had been brought to 
the attention of the Royal Academy of Sciences at 
Amsterdam and endorsed in a work of ample and 
exact learning by one of the first masters of history 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 17 

in Europe was an encouragement for an humble pro- 
fessor across the ocean. It offends my modesty to 
refer to the generous recognition which the peerless 
Dutch professor accorded to my labors wherever my 
name is mentioned in his pages; but my present 
circumstances are so painful and unfortunate that I 
believe I shall be excused for citing what he says 
on page 5, note 1: "My attention was directed to 
them (the company of Smyth and Helwys) in 1862, 
when I made investigations regarding some of them 
who united with the Waterland Mennonites in 1615, 
for the benefit of B. Evans in his Early English Bap- 
tists; and I was fortunate enough to recover the 
Dutch translation of a Confession of Faith, the Eng- 
lish original of which had been lost as early as the 
year 1738, until in 1871 it was at last discovered by 
H. M. Dexter in the Library of York Minster. I 
found occasion for renewed investigations in a cor- 
respondence I carried on with R. Barclay from 1871 
to 1876; and above all in consequence of various in- 
quiries directed to me since August, 1879, by W. 
H. Whitsitt, Professor at the Baptist Seminary, 
Louisville, Kentucky — a man whose breadth of view, 
acute understanding and exceptional skill in historic 
studies lead me to hope that, vigorously supported 
by his brethren in the faith, he shall one day ex- 
ecute a task which, up to this time, has never been 
satisfactorily performed, and which apparently could 



18 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

be better entrusted to no other person — the writing 
of a history of the Baptists." 

With such endorsement as that of de Hoop Scheffer, 
who is well described as"an antiquary, aDutchman, a 
Mennonite; who has spent his life in the Low coun- 
tries; who has the official custody of the manuscript 
remains of this very controversy, and who has for 
many years been a diligent and intelligent student 
of the history of the Separatists in Holland." 
(Dexter, True Story, p. 33, i I felt that my conclu- 
sion was entirely secure. In addition to manuscript 
remains, he also had access 1<> a library which for 
the subject in hand can hardly be excelled anywhere. 
Almost from the beginning the Mennonite church in 
Amsterdam adopted the enlightened custom of col- 
lecting printed books. A catalogue of their vast 
aggregation has been issued in two folio volumes ;is 
follows: Catalogus van de Bibliotheek der Ver- 
eenigde Doopsgezinde Gemeente te Amsterdam, Am- 
sterdam. 1888. In this work the titles of volumes 
relating to the Mennonites and kindred denomina- 
tions occupy 336 pages. With such a body of print- 
ed literature at command, in addition to so many 
priceless manuscripts, and with his admirable indus- 
try and insight, it must be conceded that Prof. 
Scheffer is entitled to speak with authority. 

The last month of the year 1881 also brought a 
work from a Congregational author in support of 
the position that immersion was introduced into 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 19 

England in the year 1641. It is entitled: "The 
True Story of John Smyth, the Se-Baptist, as Told 
by Himself and his Contemporaries; with an Inquiry 
Whether Dipping were a New Mode of Baptism, in 
England, in or about 1641; and Some Consideration 
of the Historical Yalue of Certain Extracts from the 
Alleged 'Ancient Records' of the Baptist Church of 
Ep worth, Crowle and Butterwick (Eng.), Lately Pub- 
lished and Claimed to Suggest Important Modifica- 
tions of the History of the 17th Century, With Collec- 
tions Towards a Bibliography of the First Two Gen- 
erations of the Baptist Controversy. By Henry Mar- 
tyn Dexter, Boston, 1881. " Though Dr. Dexter was 
pre-eminently an antiquarian, he was likewise a mas- 
ter of historical research. This work of his covers 
substantially the same ground as that traversed by 
de Hoop Scheffer in De Brownisten te Amsterdam, 
which it cites on more than one occasion (p. 2 and 
p. 33). In the first chapter he shows that Smyth 
and Helwys did not practice immersion, in the sec- 
ond he brings forward proofs that it was only intro- 
duced in 1641, and in the last chapter he exposes at 
considerable length and with admirable learning the 
clumsy fraud that has become such a grief and pain 
in connection with the alleged immersion of Smyth. 
Another confirmation of so much weight and au- 
thority was more than could have been expected in 
a single year. My thesis was now supported by two 
of the most distinguished historians of Europe and 



20 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

America. The learning which had been brought to 
bear in the works they produced upon it was as 
broad and select as has been displayed on any ques- 
tion in recent times. The production of de Hoop 
Scheffer remained entirely unknown in America, but 
that of Dr. Dexter was received with candid in- 
terest. Among the Baptists some were found who 
spoke words of recognition. Prof. A. H. Newman 
said, "Let no Baptist henceforth risk his reputation 
for scholarship and fair dealing by denying that 
John Smyth was a Se-Baptist, or that his baptism 
was, as regards its form, an affusion" He also ac- 
cepted the year 1641 as the proper date for the 
introduction of immersion into England, and styles 
the Crowle fraud a "festering carcass." 

One obstacle in the way of these researches was 
found in the obscurity that rested upon the history 
of immersion. On this account it has sometimes 
been easy to lose the way. and fall into confusion of 
thought. To remedy that defect Prof, de Hoop 
Scheffer found it desirable to prepare his Overzicht 
der Geschiedenis van den Doop bij Onderdompeling. 
Bijdrage van J. G. de Hoop Scheffer. Overgedrukt 
uit de Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke 
Akademie van Wetenschappen. Afdeeling Letter- 
kunde, 2de Reeks, Deel XII. Amsterdam, Johan- 
nes Mueller, 1882. (Sketch of the History of Bap- 
tism by Immersion. Contribution by J. G. de Hoop 
Scheffer. Printed from the Memoirs and Communi- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 21 

cations of the Royal Academy of Sciences. De- 
partment Literature, Second Series, Part XII. Am- 
sterdam, Johannes Mueller, 1882.) 

In this work is set forth an account of immersion 
as the act of baptism during the early Christian cen- 
turies, in which is shown how it declined since the 
thirteenth century until it had become uncommon 
on the continent at the period of the Reformation, 
though it lingered somewhat later in England. The 
facts regarding immersion among the Anabaptists 
are carefully discussed, the author claiming that very 
few of them adopted it, and showing the extent to 
which it was practiced in Poland and adjacent coun- 
tries, the manner in which it was introduced into 
Holland in 1620, and in England in 1611. This is 
an important addition to the literature of the sub- 
ject and serves an admirable purpose in several di- 
rections. 

In the United States an epoch was introduced in 
Baptist historiography by the appearance in 1891 of 
"A Short History of the Baptists," Philadelphia, by 
Henry C. Tedder, which was marked by strict in- 
vestigation and exactness of thought and statement. 
That circumstance made it a notable performance. 
The spirit of the work is admirable. Dr. Yedder is 
in substantial accord with the positions set forth by 
me, and of late has kindly embraced more than one 
opportunity to declare that fact anew in the public 
prints. 



22 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

The latest work in this field appeared in the 
American Church History Series, and is entitled, 
"A History of the Baptist Churches in the United 
States. By A. H. Newman, D.D., LL.D., Professor 
of Church History. McMaster University, Toronto, 
Canada.*' New York, 1894. It is likewise in entire 
harmony with the results of the recent investigations; 
the author expresses his adhesion to the view that 
immersion was introduced into England in 1641. 
(History, p. 80.) 

It must be apparent from the above review that 
the advance in Baptist history is not any sudden 
development. It has proceeded by slow degree for 
five and forty years. The foundations have been 
securely laid in wide research among original 
documents. Clear light has dawned at last on this 
phase of Baptist history. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 23 



II. 

BAPTISM IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. 

IN the earliest times immersion prevailed in Eng- 
land as elsewhere. Apostolic teaching and 
practice had as yet experienced no marked corrup- 
tion, in this direction at least. Baptism was fre- 
quently performed in rivers; beautiful stories are 
told by the Venerable Bede concerning the labors 
of Paul in us in the River Glen and the River Swale 
during the earlier portion of the seventh century. 

The era of baptisteries had not yet arrived, but in 
due season a generation appeared who forsook the 
river and adopted this new convenience. Baptister- 
ies were not so numerous nor so artistic in England 
as in Italy; yet they were in use there, and remains 
of some of them are claimed to be worthy of atten- 
tion. (Robinson, History of Baptism, Boston, 1817, 
pp. 133-4). 

To the age of the baptistery succeeded that of 
the font. The former was situated outside of the 
church, and sometimes a building was erected for 
its accommodation. Fonts were constructed inside 
the churches. Their dimensions were sufficient for 
the immersion of children, and the use of fonts 
instead of baptisteries would appear to indicate that 



24 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

the immersion of adults was gradually becoming an 
unusual observance. Infant baptism was apparently 
gaining ground against adult baptism, a tendency 
which it would be more difficult to resist as the 
years went on. 

At first these fonts were fairly roomy structures, 
(Robinson, pp. 128-9). In the course of time they 
became more contracted, but throughout the Middle 
Ages they must have been always large enough for 
the immersion of newborn infants. At length, in 
the latter portion of the 13th century, there occur- 
red in France a decided change of sentiment regard- 
ing the act of baptism. Both Thomas Aquinas and 
Bonaventura. a number of years before their death 
in 1274, made concessions in favor of affusion and 
aspersion. (De Hoop Scheffer, Overzicht der Ge- 
schiedenis van den Doop bij Onderdompeling. Am- 
sterdam, 1882, pp. 11, 12.) 

The result of an expression of that kind on the 
part of the foremost leaders of theological thought 
became shortly apparent. There was wavering in 
various quarters. The Synod of Cologne in 1280 
decreed that pouring would suffice where newborn 
children were in peril of immediate death; the Synod 
of Nismes in 1281 went a step farther in the same 
direction ; a synod in the Netherlands in 1287 opened 
the gate still wider, directing the officiating priest 
not to immerse the head of the child, at any time, 
but to avoid danger by pouring water three times 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 25 

upon the crown of his head; and in 1293 a like de- 
cree was passed by the Synod of Utrecht. (Burrage, 
Act of Baptism, Philadelphia, pp. 116-119). Here 
was perhaps the earliest instance where it was re- 
quired to pour water on the head while the body 
was immersed. 

This notable defection was followed in 1311 by 
the Council of Ravenna, which decreed that "baptism 
is to be administered by trine aspersion or immer- 
sion," giving preference to aspersion. The foun- 
dations were gradually breaking up. France, Ger- 
many, Holland and Italy were all more or less 
affected, and all more or less helpless in the current 
that had set against the primitive form of baptism. 
But England in her isolation was as yet practically 
untouched. Throughout the fourteenth century there 
is but one sign that she was sensible of the change 
that had been going forward on the other side of the 
•channel. Wyclif, who died in 1384, remarked in a 
discourse on baptism: "Nor is it material whether 
they be dipped once or thrice, or water be poured 
on their heads: but it must be done according to the 
■custom of the place where one dwells." Dr. Wall, 
(History of Infant Baptism. Oxford, 1848. Yol. 
2, p. 397,) endeavors to break the force of that 
statement, but without success. It is somewhat 
singular that only this one concession towards pour- 
ing or sprinkling has yet been found in the Church 
of England during so long a period of time. It has 



26 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

commonly been supposed that the coldest countries 
surrendered immersion the soonest, but exactly the 
opposite is the real state of the case. 

Wyclif gave the first note of wavering in the 
England of the later Middle Ages. Since he was 
not in the odor of orthodoxy, his opinion was not 
taken up by a chorus of councils like that which 
greeted the utterances of Aquinas and Bonaventura 
in the thirteenth century, but the common sort of 
people must have received his words with some de- 
gree of sympathy. The work of Lyndewode, Dean 
of the Arches, in 1422, describing the English Con- 
stitutions, declares that the manner of baptizing 
infants is by dipping, and yet he adds a note to say 
that "This is not to be accounted to be of the es- 
sence of baptism: but it may be given also by pour- 
ing or sprinkling. And this holds especially where 
the custom of the church allows it." i Wall, Vol. 2, 
p. 396). Evidently some churches upon their own 
responsibility without the authority of any council 
or liturgy must have already undertaken to practice 
pouring or sprinkling for baptism. 

After the time of Lyndewode innovations began 
to spring up more rapidly, especially on the conti- 
nent. In 1482 the Wurzburg Liturgy gave the 
priest a choice of thrice immersing or thrice wash- 
ing the infant with water: in 1491 the Bamberg 
Liturgy prescribed pouring alone, and there had 
been even earlier instances in France where immer- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 27 

sion was wholly left out of the account. Yet in the 
following century Erasmus in his remarks on Cyp- 
rian's Letter 76 to Magnus, declares not without a 
touch of contempt: "Infants are poured upon in our 
country; they are immersed in England." (Scheffer, 
Overzicht, p. 18). In 1533 Henry VIII. caused 
his infant daughter Elizabeth to be immersed at 
Greenwich, and in 1537 his infant son Edward was 
immersed at Hampton Court Chapel. Such a cere- 
mony would have been possible at that time perhaps 
in few other royal households of Western Christen- 
dom. 

However, outside pressure was becoming percept- 
ible in England. The Reformers, Luther, Zwingli 
and Calvin, while dispensing with many customs 
that had grown up in connection with baptism in the 
Catholic Church, yet made no change in the rite 
itself, as the same was practiced in the regions where 
they lived. Possibly Luther was the most conserv- 
ative of the three, and would have been well pleased 
to restore immersion. In his Sermon on Baptism 
published in 1518 he expresses himself to that effect, 
and likewise in the work styled "The Babylonish 
Captivity," which appeared in 1520. The same is 
true of his Larger Catechism and of the baptismal 
formulas issued in 1523 and 1526. 

But he found that the current was too strong, and 
in a small work entitled "How One Should Proper- 
ly Baptize," etc., published in 1523, he prescribed 



28 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

that the administrator shall "pour water upon the 
candidate, and say I baptize thee," etc. Nearly all 
the liturgies of the Lutheran Church indicate that 
this form prevailed. (Scheffer, Overzicht, pp. 19, 20). 

The Reformed or Presbyterian Church, with which 
the Church of England was for a season somewhat 
more closely allied, was less inclined to regard the 
demands of conservatism, and therefore was more 
inclined to favor pouring or sprinkling. The Stras- 
burg Order of Baptism, issued in 1525, required 
pouring and ignored immersion; Zwingli in his book, 
Yon dem Touff, vom Widertouff uund vom Kinder- 
touff, Zurich, 1525, referred to pouring or dipping 
as the general custom in 1525, (Burrage, pp. 133-4); 
and Zurich issued an Order of Baptism in 1535 en- 
joining the minister merely to pour water thrice 
upon the child, (Burrage, pp. 138-9). A few years 
later the same city was formally to forbid immersion 
and require that children should only be sprinkled 
thrice, (Robinson, History, p. 484). 

Tyndale, in his Doctrinal Treatises, 1528, Parker 
Society, Cambridge, 1848, p. 277, indicates that it 
was not unheard of even in England for the priest to 
pour water upon the child's head, and that he him- 
self approved this innovation. His words are as 
follows: "Behold how narrowly the people look on 
the ceremony. If aught be left out, or if the child 
be not altogether dipt in the water; or if, because 
the child is sick, the priest dare not plunge him into 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 29- 

the water, but pour water on his head, how tremble 
they! how quake they! 'How say ye, Sir John,' 
(say they) 'is this child christened enough ? Hath it 
his full Christendom V They verily believe that the 

child is not christened Now this is false 

doctrine, verily." 

But Henry VIII. had an iron hand, and there was 
apparently no official retrograde movement as long 
as he lived. Wall says of the period before Edward 
VI. (History, Vol. 2, p. 397), "The offices or litur- 
gies for public baptism in the Church of England 
did all along, so far as I can learn, enjoin dipping 
without any mention of pouring or sprinkling." 
Yet the time of change had come, and two year& 
after the death of Henry, the Book of Common 
Prayer for the year 1549 required indeed the ancient 
usage of trine immersion, but allowed that if the 
child were weak it should suffice to pour water upon 
it. This is understood to have been the earliest 
official recognition of a practice that had been gain- 
ing headway for a long season. 

Other changes followed more rapidly. In 1552' 
a new Prayer Book appeared in which only a single 
immersion was enjoined, and pouring was again 
made optional in case of weakness. In the sad days 
of Queen Mary the ecclesiastical leaders of the 
country were scattered on the continent, and so 
were brought into closer contact with the sentiment 
and practices that prevailed there. Numbers of 



30 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

them were in touch with Calvin at Geneva who prac- 
ticed pouring exclusively since 1536 and had openly 
published his Form of Administering the Sacra- 
ments in 1545, in which immersion was omitted. 
(Wall, vol. 2, p. 400.) By that means, and influenced 
through the atmosphere which existed almost every- 
where beyond the Channel, these men were rendered 
impatient of the slower pace at which things were 
moving in their native country. To one who sur- 
veys the whole situation it seems a marvel that the 
Church of England should have held out so long 
and so stoutly. Still the limits of her power to resist 
had now been reached. At the accession of Eliza- 
beth in 1558 the exiles returned and began the labor 
of innovation. The queen who had not traveled 
abroad naturally used her endeavors to resist them. 
In 1571 a book was issued under her auspices in 
which church wardens were instructed to see "that 
in every church there be a holy founte, />"/ a bason, 
wherein baptism may be ministered, and it be kept 
comely and clean." In 15S4 another book appeared 
in which a similar item is found to the effect that 
"the font be not removed, nor that the curate do 
baptize in parish churches in any basons, nor in any 
other form than is already prescribed," etc. (Rob- 
inson, pp. 114,115.) 

The queen had an imperious will, but she could 
not stand against the movement that was now going 
forward. It had been started by Wyclif as early as 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 31 

1384, and was practically completed after two cen- 
turies of struggle and delay. The fonts were re- 
moved from the churches in spite of Elizabeth's au- 
thority. Dr. Wall, History, vol. 2, p. 401, says 
that "in the latter times of Queen Elizabeth, and 
during the reigns of King James and of King Charles 
I., very few children were dipped in the font." 

Thomas Blake, of Tamworth, indeed, writing in 
1645 (Infants Freed from Anti-Christianism, p. 1), 
says: "I have been an eye-witness of many infants 
dipped." Here he seems to talk like an adept at 
special pleading, especially as on page 4 of the 
same work he declares in more moderate terms, "I 
have seen several dipped." (Wall, vol. 2, p. 402.) 
Perhaps the truth is stated by Dean Stanley, as cited 
by Dr. Armitage (History of the Baptists. New 
York, 1887, p. 434), who says that according to the 
annals of the English Church the last recorded in- 
stances of immersion before the Restoration were 
the dipping of three infant sons of Sir Robert Shir- 
ley, in the reign of Charles I. 

The baptism of infants in the Church of England 
had long since crowded out the baptism of adult be- 
lievers. The immersion of a grown-up person as a 
religious observance seems to have become to all 
intents a lost art. For a long time no provision ap- 
peared in the Prayer Book for the "Public Baptism 
of Such as are of Riper Years," until the year 1661. 
Two reasons are given for its introduction at that 



32 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

time; one that it had become necessary "by ye 
growth of Anabaptism, through ye Licentiousness of 
ye late Times crept in amongst us," and the other 
that it would "be allwaies usefull for ye baptizing 
of Natives in our Plantations, and others converted 
to ye Faith." (Dexter. True Story of John Smyth. 
Boston, 1881, p. 23. Cf. Wall, vol. 2, pp. 321-2.) 
Baptists were about that time making their influence 
felt; moreover, England had now become, what she 
had not been before, a commercial and colonizing 
nation. 

Generally speaking, the Reformed or Presby- 
terian Church was indifferent, if not opposed, to im- 
mersion. It has been shown above how Strasburg 
decided against it in 1525, Zurich in 1535 and Gen- 
eva in 1545. When the Westminster Divines, who 
were preparing the Directory for Public Worship of 
God, came to discuss tins subject on the seventh of 
August, 1644, it was now their turn to reject im- 
mersion as their continental predecessors had done. 
This rite had long been disused among Presby- 
terians, and every member of the Assembly was 
agreed that sprinkling was the best mode of bap- 
tism. The question at issue before them was wheth- 
er immersion should be tolerated as an alternate 
form of baptism and allowed to stand by the side of 
sprinkling. Numbers felt unwilling to go on record 
as rejecting a New Testament usage by formal ac- 
tion, and hence the vote was close. If they had 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 33 

allowed immersion to stand, it is likely that nobody 
in their communion would have employed it. But 
their sentiments were too decided even to allow it to 
stand. Twenty-five went against it, while only 
twenty-four were willing to concede that it was one 
of the modes by which baptism might be adminis- 
tered. (John Lightfoot's Works, London, 1824, 
Yol. 13, p. 300.) This was the most radical action 
against immersion which up to that time had ever 
been taken by one of the larger denominations of 
Christendom. 

Thus it will be seen that though England moved 
at some distance in the rear, she moved neverthe- 
less. The immersion of infants was practically ex- 
tinct in the Church of England by the year 1600. 
By the year 1611 the Presbyterians of England and 
Scotland had even traveled far enough to decide by 
a formal vote in the Assembly at Westminster that 
immersion was not a proper form in which to ad- 
minister baptism, an extreme to which the Church 
of England has not yet advanced. The immersion 
of adults had become so far unknown that it could 
be stated without reservation in the Jessey Church 
Records for the year 1610 that "none had then so 
practiced in England to professed believers." 



34 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



IV. 



BAPTISM AMONG THE ANABAPTISTS OF THE SIX- 
TEENTH AND EARLY PORTION OF THE SEVEN- 
TEENTH CENTURY IN ENGLAND. 

ANABAPTISTS first appeared in England in the 
earlier portion of the sixteenth century. On 
the 25th of May, 1535, 19 men and 6 women, all of 
them from Holland, were arrested on the charge of 
being Anabaptists. (Stowe, Chronicle, p. 571.) 
The city of Muenster was at that moment under 
siege, and was captured a month later. In 1538 
six others were taken, who were also from Holland. 
(Stowe, p. 576.) Fuller, in his Church History, in- 
timates that they had come over in the hope of find- 
ing protection on account of the prospective marriage 
of Henry VIII. to Anne of Cleves. (Crosby. History 
of the English Baptists. London, 1738-40. Vol. 
1, p. 39.) In 1539 16 men and 15 women, Ana- 
baptists, were banished from England and went to 
Delft, Holland, where they were seized by the au- 
thorities and executed, the men being beheaded and 
the women drowned. (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 42.) 

The Anabaptists of England in the sixteenth cen- 
tury were nearly all from Holland. Joan Boucher, 
of Kent, an English woman, was an exception, but 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 35 

there were very few others. The celebrated Mr. 
Fox, in a letter to Queen Elizabeth, in 1575, says: 
"I understand there are some (Anabaptists) here in 
England, tho' not English, but come hither from 
Holland, f * * and we have great reason to 
give God thanks on this account, that I hear not of 
any Englishman that is inclined to this madness." 
(Crosby, vol. 1, p. 71.) 

But none of the Anabaptists of Holland or of the. 
adjacent sections of Germany were immersionists. 
So far as any account of them has come to light, 
they were uniformly in the practice of pouring or 
sprinkling for baptism, excepting the Collegiants, 
who, at Khynsburg, began to immerse in 1620. 

In fact, few Anabaptists anywhere were immer- 
sionists. The Reformers, Luther, Zwingli and 
Calvin, as we have seen, quietly accepted the usage 
of the Catholic Church and raised no contention at 
all about the act of baptism. Whatever custom was 
current regarding this point among the people where 
they labored, was embraced by them. Pouring and 
sprinkling were current almost everywhere, and they 
were accordingly adopted without scruple. 

The same remark applies to the Anabaptists, who 
insisted upon baptism of believers only, rarely 
made any contention about the mode, and almost 
always practiced pouring or sprinkling. Dr. Balthazar 
Hubmeier, one of their most worthy and influential 
leaders, describes the act of baptism as follows: 



36 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

"To baptize in water is to pour outward water over 
the confessor of his sins, in accordance with the 
divine command, and to inscribe him in the number 
of sinners upon his own confession and acknowledge- 
ment. So has John baptized." (Yon dem Christen- 
lichen Tauff der gliiubigen durch Balthasarn Hiib- 
mor, 1525, p. 5.) "In April, 1525, it being Easter, 
the customary season for baptism, Hubmeier called 
his followers together and hawing sent for a pail of 
water solemnly baptized three hundred persons at 
onetime." (Burrage, p. 131. i 

Felix Mantz, another leader, also practiced pour- 
ing. Under date of February 7, 1525, George 
Schad, of Zollikon, near Zurich, testified, "that he 
had passed all his days in sin and blasphemy; that 
he had been greatly distressed on this account, and 
that he had prayed to God for grace and for convic- 
tion of sin, and God manifested his grace to him so 
that he was convicted of sin. Then God promised 
him if he should depart from sin that He would also 
forgive his sin. That promise moved him greatly, 
and he asked for the token of brotherly love, that 
he might do to his neighbor all the good that he did 
to himself. Then he submitted to have water poured 
upon him, and Felix Mantz was the person who bap- 
tized him." (Egli, Actensammlung zur Geschichte 
der Zuercher Reformation, Zurich, 1879, p. 283.) 
Another instance may be cited: "Hans Bruggbach, 
of Zumikon, stood up and cried out how great a sin- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 37 

ner he was, and desired that they should pray to 
God for him. Then George Blaurock asked him 
whether he desired the grace of God. He replied, 
yes. Then Mantz stood up and said, Who shall hin- 
der me from baptizing him? Then Blaurock an- 
swered, 'Nobody.' Thereupon Mantz took a dipper 
of water and baptised him in the name of God the 
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. " 
(Egli, p. 284. Of. Burrage, p. 130.) 

It used to be said that the word Katabaptist, so 
often applied to Anabaptists, by their opponents 
during the Reformation period, contained indisput- 
able proof that they were immersionists. The prep- 
osition kata, in its primary or local usage, means 
down, and so, it was argued, Katabaptist must have 
been one who baptized downwards, that is, im- 
mersed. But just as ana, meaning primarily up, 
came to be used in the sense of again, so kata, in 
several technical terms, means against, and Prof. 
Scheffer has fully shown that in the usage of con 
temporary authors this was its meaning in the word 
under consideration, and that Zwingli and others in 
styling them Katabaptists meant only that they were 
"against" the commonly accepted baptism. (Over- 
zicht, pp. 24-26.) Thus the same persons were 
called Anabaptists, or Rebaptizers, because they 
baptized on profession of faith those who had been 
christened in infancy, and Katabaptists, or opponents 
of infant baptism. While~ the great body of Ana- 



38 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

baptist believers practiced pouring or sprinkling for 
baptism, there were a few exceptions in favor of 
immersion. John Kessler, in his Chronicle of the 
Reformation in St. Gall, called Sabbata (vol. 1, p. 
262), says: "Wolfgang Uolman encountered Con- 
rad Grebel on the journey to Schaffhausen, and 
while with him was so highly impressed with Ana- 
baptism that he would not simply be poured upon 
with water out of a dish, but, being entirely naked, 
he was pressed down and covered over in the 
Rhine." (Scheffer, Overzicht, p. 23.) 

Prof. Scheffer allows himself to assert in this con- 
nection that the example of Uolman was followed 
by no other person, but that is perhaps an extreme 
position. The people of St. Gall whom Grebel bap- 
tized in the Sitter River on Palm Sunday of 1525 it 
is likely were immersed. Scheffers reason for call- 
ing this in question (Overzicht, p. 23) is that Grebel, 
with his associates and successors in the Anabaptist 
faith, from that day to the present, have always 
baptized by a handful of water merely, and, there- 
fore, that he could not have employed immersion on 
this occasion. One naturally hesitates to challenge 
the conclusions of a Mennonite scholar of so much 
ability and distinction: but it is admitted that Grebel 
immersed Uolman in the Rhine, and it is possible 
that he also immersed numbers of people who fol- 
lowed him from St. Gall to the Sitter River. Prof. 
Scheffer replies to this by pointing out that immer- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 39 

sion is expressly described where Uolman was bap- 
tized in the Rhine, and that it cannot be conceded 
on the banks of the Sitter River without a like 
definite statement. Yet it is not easy to discover 
any other reason why Grebel and his friends should 
journey as far as the river over a difficult road and 
hold their worship in the open air upon its banks. 

The Benedictine monk Clement Sender, an eye- 
witness, describes the usage of the Anabaptists of 
Augsburg in this regard, and Dr. Theodore Keim, 
in his paper on Ludwig Hetzer (Jahrbuecher fur 
Deutsche Theologie, Stuttgart, 1856, p. 278), repro- 
duces the substance of his testimony. "The act of 
baptism," he says, "was administered in the River 
Lech, the men being naked and the women wearing 
bathing-trousers; or in times of persecution it was 
administered simply by sprinkling the forehead in 
cellars and barnyards." In this connection he men- 
tions the wife of a stonemason, Adolf Ducher, "who 
during the absence of her husband at Vienna three 
days in the Holy Week of -1527 opened her house, 
which was favorably situated on the River Lech, for 
the purpose of baptizing." 

No sufficient reason appears for calling in question 
the authority of Sender. If it be allowed to stand 
then we must conclude that the Anabaptists of Augs- 
burg at the most flourishing moment of their exist- 
ence, when their church numbered 1100 members, 
practiced immersion as well as sprinkling. Frof. 



40 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Scheffer is not able to understand why Sebastian 
Franck, who Jived not far away at Ulm, and de- 
scribed in his Chronicles (1536) with the greatest 
detail a number of Anabaptist sects should not have 
heard of such an unusual occurrence as immersion 
at Augsburg (Overzicht, p. 27). The argument from 
silence is not always conclusive. The testimony of 
Sender must be allowed to stand until some better 
reasons shall be advanced to overthrow it. If my 
view is sustained it must follow that immersion was 
practiced at two points at least by the Anabaptists of 
the Reformation period, namely, at St. Gall, in 
Switzerland, and Augsburg, in Bavaria. The ques- 
tion has been mooted as to what proportion of the 
whole number of Anabaptist believers were immer- 
sionists, but the data for a correct conclusion are 
not satisfactory. Some would say that possibly one 
in twenty of them may have been immersionists, 
whilst others would establish the proportion as no 
greater than one in a hundred. 

There were immersing Anabaptists in Poland, ' 
Silesia, Lithuania and Pomerania (Scheffer, Over- 
zicht, p. 32 i. The common impression is that these 
were derived from St. Gall, in Switzerland. Scat- 
tered by persecution the Swiss Anabaptists were 
forced to travel into many countries, and it is con- 
ceivable that some of them found their way to the 
countries mentioned. But Scheffer in the work al- 
ready cited has assumed a new position on that sub- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 41 

ject, declaring that baptism of no kind was practiced 
among the Polish believers until they introduced 
immersion in 1575. In the previous year a cate- 
chism, the first on record in Poland that required 
this rite for professed believers, was published at 
Cracow. Martin Czechowitz, pastor at Wilna and 
later at Lublin, he represents to have been responsi- 
ble for this change. (Overzicht, p. 31.) He likewise 
affirms that Czechowitz was induced to prefer im- 
mersion as the act of baptism solely for the reason 
that the immersion of infants was still customary 
among Catholics and Protestants alike, because the 
countries in question were in the neighborhood of 
the Greek Church, where it was the only form of 
administering the ordinance. (Overzicht, p. 33.) 
The Unitarians of Poland, who had discontinued the- 
use of baptism, were also influenced by these condi- 
tions so far as to come out in favor of immersion in 
their catechism of 1609, which was reprinted in 1659' 
and 1680. (Overzicht, p. 37.) 

Several of these statements have not yet been 
completely established by proofs. It is just possible 
that immersionists may have existed in Poland be- 
fore the appearance of the Catechism at Cracow in 
1574, and that they may have obtained their prac- 
tice from Switzerland rather than from the Greek 
Church. This view appears to have about as firm 
historical support as the one set forth above. 

In general, then, it may be declared that the very 



42 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

small number of immersing Anabaptists on the con- 
tinent of Europe were confined to regions remote 
from Holland whence it has been shown that the 
Anabaptists of England during the sixteenth cen- 
tury were derived. 

The Anabaptists of Holland appear to have been, 
without exception, engaged in the practice of pour- 
ing and sprinkling. Melchior Hoffman was under- 
stood and represented among them as their "Father." 
It was due to his activity that anabaptism was trans- 
planted from Southern to Northern Germany, (Kel- 
ler, Geschichte der Wiedertauf er, etc. , Muenster, 1880, 
p. 121), and Hoffman practiced pouring. Cornelius 
(Geschichte des Muensterischen Aufruhr's, Leipzig, 
1855, vol. 2, p. 222,) says that "in the sacristy of the 
Great Church at Emden Hoffman could venture 
openly to administer baptism in the year 1530." 
Hast (Geschichte der Wiedertaeufer, Muenster, 1836, 
p. 255, ) asserts upon the authority of the anabaptist 
Ubbo Philipps that 300 persons were baptized by 
Hoffman out of a large bucket on this occasion. 
The act of baptism could not have been immersion, 
in this case. 

The "Confession of the Two Sacraments" that 
was composed by Bernard Rothmann and issued at 
Muenster on the 8th of October, 1537, is in some 
respects a singular performance. It seems to par- 
take of the indecision that was the bane of Roth- 
mann's character, and which probably more than 
anything else was the cause of the disaster at Muen- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 43 

(iter. He talks as bravely as could be desired about 
"plunging into the water," "plunging under the 
water," "thrusting into the water," and yet he turns 
about and disappoints every expectation as follows: 
"to baptise signifies to plunge into the water, to im- 
merse in water, and baptism signifies an immersion 
or sprinkling with water. , " (De Hoop Scheffer, 
Overzicht, pp. 26-7). Baptizing and sprinkling 
were in his view synonymous terms. Scheffer 
(Overzicht, p. 27,) also directs attention to the cir- 
cumstance that he describes as a "thrusting into the 
water" the baptism of the Evangelicals, who through- 
out Lower Germany employed no other rite than 
sprinkling and pouring. 

No baptisms were performed at Muenster or else- 
where under the "Confession of the Two Sacra- 
ments" and hence it is of no special consequence in 
this history. Before Rotlmiann could make up his 
mind to go forward and begin the work of rebaptiz- 
ing the reins had slipped from his hands and Jan 
Mathys, of Holland, the Prophet, had obtained con- 
trol of the Anabaptist movement at Muenster. Two 
of his emissaries appeared there on the 5th of January, 
1534, and baptized Rothmann himself together with 
the rest of the preachers. As the work was begun 
and prosecuted in Rothmann 's house, (Cornelius, 
vol. 2, p. 234,) the /ite was probably administered 
by pouring; at least that was the case in all later in- 
stances where one can obtain any distinct view of 
the ceremony. 



44 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

For example, on Friday the 27th of February, 
1535, all who remained in the city were required to 
submit to baptism, and an eyewitness describes the 
proceedings as follows: "There stood upon the mar- 
ket place three or more preachers and baptized the 
people. The preachers said to the people whom 
they baptized that they should turn from their sins 
and work righteousness; and they had a pail of water 
standing before them, and the people went upon 
their knees before the preachers, and the preachers 
baptised the people with three handfulls of water in 
the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy 
Ghost." (Cornelius, Berichte der Augenzeugen 
ueber das Muensterische Wiedertaeuferreich. Muen- 
ster, 1853, p. 20). 

Let the following suffice as instances of the man- 
ner in which baptism in private houses was later 
performed at Muenster: "Frau Van der Recke was 
first in Rothmanirs house, where the gospel was 
proclaimed to herself and her daughters. Then one 
of the daughters fell upon her knees and received 
baptism, afterwards the other, and last of all the 
mother." (Cornelius, Berichte, p. 409). 

No other act of baptism appears to have been 
practiced by Anabaptists anywhere in this portion 
of the country. We have exact descriptions of the 
baptism of a number in the year 1534 and 1535 at 
Maastricht, Holland, where there was a considerable 
body of them in close touch with the authorities at 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 45 

Muenster. Some of these may be cited as specimens. 
Bartholomeus van den Berge, "being asked in what 
manner he was rebaptized replied that the baptizer 
took water out of a small dish and spoke thus: I bap- 
tize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the 
Holy Ghost." (Jos. Habets, De Wederdoopers Te 
Maastricht. Roermond, 1877, p. 136). 

Mente Jan Heynen, stepdaughter of the preced- 
ing, "being asked in what manner she was rebap- 
tized, replied: The baptizer took spring water and 
baptized her in the name of the Father and the Son 
and the Holy Ghost." (Habets, p. 138). 

Mathys Spangemecker, testifies "that he was re- 
baptized at the house of Jan van Ginke, the younger, 

in the garret of the house, and that Herr 

Henrich baptized him with water upon his head in 
the name of the Father, the Son and Holy Ghost." 
(Habets, pp. 143-4). 

Heynrik Tymmerman "says that when he was 
baptized, Jan the Landlord of the house was present, 
and his brother Michael ; that Jan the Land- 
lord brought hi in there. Furthermore he says that 
while he was being baptized he was kneeling down 
upon his knees." (Habets, p. 152). 

Bouterwek, Zur Literatur und Geschichte der 
Wiedertaufer, Bonn, 1864, pp. 83-87, gives the tes- 
timony of a number of Anabaptists of Wesel, Hol- 
land, during the period in question which shows 
that in this city also the rite was regularly adminis- 
tered by sprinkling and pouring. 



46 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

An incorrect impression regarding the act of bap- 
tism as administered by Menno Simons was long 
current in our country, but that excellent his- 
torian, Dr. Burrage, finally corrected a blunder in 
the translation upon which it was established. He 
says, Act of Baptism, p. 140: "It has been supposed 
that in a passage in his Explanation of Christian Bap- 
tism in the folio edition of his works, p. 419, Menno 
expressed his own view of the act of baptism, and his 
words have been translated by Morgan Edwards and 
others as follows: 'After we have searched ever so 
diligently, we shall find no other baptism besides- 
dipping in water which is acceptable to God and 
maintained in his word.' 

" 'But,' adds Dr. Burrage, 'the passage is not 
thus correctly rendered. What Menno has in view 
is the representation that Christ and the Apostles 
taught two kinds of baptism, that of believers and 
that of infants;' and (with respect to that point) he 
says: 'However diligently we seek, night and day, 
yet we find no more than one baptism in water that 
is pleasing to God, expressed and contained in his 
word — namely, this baptism on faith.'" The last 
clause, which is so essential to the meaning, is not 
found in the passage translated by Morgan Edwards, 
who also made a mistake in regard to the word doop- 
sel as employed by Menno. (Materials Towards a 
History of the Baptists in Pennsylvania. Philadel- 
phia, 1770, p. 93, note.) 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. ±T 

Menno's most definite expression touching the 
act of baptism is found in the folio edition of his 
works (1681), p. 22,< where he says: "I certainly 
think that these and similar commands (to love one's 
enemies, to crucify the flesh and the lusts thereof) 
are more painful and burdensome to perverted flesh, 
which is everywhere so prone to walk in its own 
way, than it is to receive a handful of water.'''' After 
citing the above passage, Scheffer says: "A hand- 
ful of water, that is to say, simple pouring with 
water, was in use among the Anabaptists during the 
first half of the sixteenth century, both in Switzer- 
land, where they first arose, and also in the coun- 
tries whither they had extended themselves, such as 
Upper Germany (with the single exception of Augs- 
burg), and the western portions of the Empire, as 
Belgium and the Netherlands." (Overzicht, p. 28.) 
It has been intimated that his position may be ex- 
treme, regarding the small extent to which immer- 
sion was adopted among the Anabaptists of Switzer- 
land, but there can be no question of the correctness 
of the contention that among the Mennbnites or 
other Anabaptists of Holland and adjacent countries 
there never existed at any period such a custom as- 
immersion. 

As was indicated above, historical records show- 
that the Anabaptists of England during the sixteenth 
and the first half of the seventeenth century came- 
from Holland. These being in the practice of pour- 
ing, it follows conclusively that none of the Ana- 



48 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

baptists of England during the period mentioned 
were immersionists. That incontestable deliverance 
of history has now and then been called in question 
because Thomas Fuller, in his Church History of 
Britain, published in 1655, when treating of certain 
Hollanders who were brought to trial in 1538 adds 
that "these Anabaptists for the main were but Do- 
natists new dipt." (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 39.) The 
times had passed by in England when everybody 
who was christened had to be dipped, but this 
learned and witty author was well aware of that old 
usage and of the fact that it was no longer in vogue. 
Yet "dipped" was still in use as a synonym for 
"christened." Mr. Fuller was fond of the allitera- 
tion "Donatists new dipt," and employed the ex- 
pression for no other purpose than to indicate that 
the Anabaptists were but Donatists with a new name. 
He intended to pronounce no opinion whatever on 
the question whether these men, who lived more 
than a hundred years before the time at which he 
wrote, employed pouring or immersion for baptism. 
In conclusion, the general result may be stated 
that few Anabaptists of any country were immer- 
sionists, and that none of the Anabaptists of Eng- 
land in the sixteenth and first half of the seven- 
teenth centuries were immersionists. Therefore the 
Jessey Church Records were entirely in the right, as 
far as English Anabaptists were concerned, when 
they declared in 1640 that "none had then so prac- 
ticed in England to professed believers." 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 49 



BAPTISM AMONG THE FOLLOWERS OF JOHN SMYTH 
AND THOMAS HELWYS. 

JOHN SMYTH, opened his public career as a 
preacher in the Established Church at Lincoln. 
Most authorities represent that he continued there 
until the year 1602, when he laid down his office and 
left the State Church. (Scheffer, De Brownisten te 
Amsterdam, etc., Amsterdam, 1881, p. 80.) But I 
am inclined to fix the date in 1603, for the reason 
that I ^discovered in the Library of Emmanuel Col- 
lege at Cambridge, in the summer of 1880, a small 
volume of which he seems to have been the author. 
Following is the title: The bright morning starre, or 
the resolution and exposition of the 22 Psalme, 
preached publickely in foure sermons at Lincoln, by 
John Smyth, preacher of the citie. Printed 1603. 
Scheffer himself (p. 80, note 5) is somewhat inclined 
to the opinion, based on the existence of this book, 
that Smyth remained in the Establishment at least 
during a portion of the year 1603. 

He next became pastor of a Brownist or Inde- 
pendent Church, collected perhaps by his own ex- 

*"My friend, Prof. Whitsitt, found a volume of Ms sermons in the Library of 
Emmanuel College, Cambridge, under the title: The bright morning starre," 
&c. Scheffer, De Brownisten, p. 79, note 3. 



50 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

ertions, at Gainsborough on the Trent (Scheffer, De 
Brownisten, pp. 80-1), where he was very active 
and successful for several years. The representa- 
tion that he was at one time vicar of Gainsborough 
appears to lack support. The church of John Rob- 
inson which went over to Holland in 1608, and sent 
a portion of its members to New England in 1620 
was an outgrowth of Smyth's labors at Gains- 
borough (Dexter, Congregationalism as Seen in its 
Literature, New York, 1880, p. 316. Scheffer, p. 
84, note 6). Surely he builcled wiser than he knew. 
It was indirectly due to the labors of Smyth that the 
Pilgrim Fathers later became established at Plymouth 
in New England. 

Possibly it was in October or November, 1606, 
that Smyth got away from England to Amsterdam 
with a company of his brethren, leaving those who 
remained behind under the pastoral care of Mr. Rob- 
inson and their teacher Richard Clyfton. (Scheffer, 
pp. 81-5). Smyth and his followers did not unite 
themselves to the church of Johnson and Ainswortb 
which had been established already a number of 
years in Amsterdam, but organized a church of their 
own that was known as the Second English Church, 
the other being commonly designated as the Ancient 
Church. (Smyth, Differences of the Churches of 
the Separation, 1608, title page.) 

Falling under the influence of the Waterland Men- 
nonites Mr. Smvth soon altered his opinions and, 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 51 

perhaps in October, 1608, became an Anabaptist. 
Being a man of singular power in many directions, 
it seems likely that he was able to carry with him 
the entire membership of the Second English Church 
(Scheffer, p. 104); it is not known that a single 
one of them refused to join him in the new venture. 
The whole number was about forty (Scheffer, p. 104). 

Here is the earliest Anabaptist church, that was 
composed exclusively of English people, and yet it 
did not exist on English soil. Not many days after 
the work had been accomplished, Mr. Smyth con- 
cluded that he had acted hastily. Coming into 
closer intercourse with the Mennonites he was in- 
duced to believe that the baptism which he had 
administered to himself and his people was not quite 
orderly, and to regret the course which he had pur- 
sued. His reflections must have been made known 
to his people as early as January or February, 1609, 
and possibly efforts were already on foot to induce 
them in turn to enter the Mennonite communion. 
(Scheffer, p. 127). 

The church was apparently of one mind in becom- 
ing Anabaptists and receiving adult baptism, but 
when this new proposition was advanced differences 
appeared that could not be allayed. Yet his power 
was so great that 17 women and 14 men united with 
him in the purpose to join the Mennonites. These 
required the English brethren to subscribe a peti- 
tion expressing sorrow for the disorderly baptism, 



52 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

and requesting to be received into their fellowship. 
A copy of this petition somewhat incorrectly printed 
is given by Evans, Early English Baptists, London, 
1862, vol. 1, pp. 244-5; an English translation of 
the same appears p. 209. The original in the hand- 
writing of Smyth exists in the archives of the Men- 
nonite Church at Amsterdam (Scheffer, p. 128.) 

In addition the Mennonites required a Confession 
of Faith, in order to satisfy themselves that the the- 
ological opinions of the English were the same as 
their own. This Confession is published in English 
by Evans, vol. 1, p. 253. The original in Latin, 
also in the handwriting of Smyth, is found in the 
Archives of the Amsterdam Church, and has been 
published by Scheffer, p. 169. 

Thirty-two people had set their hands to the peti- 
tion desiring admission to the Mennonite commun- 
ion. The others, eight or ten in number, refused to 
take such a step. They regarded the movement to- 
wards the Mennonites in the light of a sin against 
the Holy Spirit. It was their intention to remain 
where they were and walk in the light whereunto 
they had attained. That small company by bravely 
standing their ground at a critical period became the 
founders of the body of Christian people which sub- 
sequently acquired the title of General Baptists in 
England. Richard Clyfton, an eye witness, in "A 
plea for infants and elder people concerning their 
baptisme, or a processe of the passages between Mr. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 53 

John Smyth and Richard Clyfton, Amst, 1610, says, 
according to Scheffer, p. 129 (note), that "not above 
ten persons''' 1 were of the party. The male members 
were Thomas Jlelwys, Wm. Piggott, Thos. Seamer 
and John Murton (Evans, vol. 1, p. 210), the others 
being, as is supposed, females. 

As soon as Helwys heard of the petition of Smyth 
and his friends requesting to be admitted to the Men- 
nonite church they entered a protest written in Latin, 
and published by Scheffer, De Brownisten, p. 172, 
announcing that they had already excluded the of- 
fenders for their sin and desiring the Mennonites to 
beware of them. The Mennonites, possibly hoping 
that they might make peace between the warring 
elements also requested Helwys and his friends to 
submit a Synopsis of their Faith, which was given 
in the same hand and language as the protest and is 
published in the above mentioned work by Scheffer, 
p. 173. Not content with the protest which they 
had made in Latin, Helwys and his brethren tried it 
over again, perhaps with superior effect, in English, 
under date of March 12, 1609. (Evans, vol. 1, pp. 
209-11. The date, 1610, given at the bottom of 
page 210, is wrong by one year. Scheffer, p. 135). 

These protests, one in Latin and the other in 
English, had the effect of putting off the day when 
the Mennonites should receive Smyth and his peo- 
ple into their communion. Helwys and his party of 
nine, who did not hesitate, after excommunicating 



54 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Smyth and his followers, to the number of thirty- 
one, to denominate themselves the "'-True Christian 
English Church at Amsterdam" (Scheffer, p. 173), 
were eager to preserve the closest relations with their 
Mennonite fellow-Christians, and to prevent these 
from drawing nigh to their adversaries. 

Before the middle of the year 1611 (Scheffer, p. 
148), the brave little party of ten issued another con- 
fession, not simply for the benefit of the Mennon- 
ites, but also for the instruction of the general pub- 
lic, which they styled "A Declaration of Faith of 
English People, remaining at Amsterdam in Hol- 
land."" .Crosby, vol. 2, Appendix I.) They did 
not "remain" much longer at Amsterdam; almost as 
soon as the Declaration had left the press, they also 
appear to have left Holland for England. (Scheffer, 
p. 152.) 

Something more than a year afterwards Mr. Smyth 
fell into his last illness; he was buried at the Nieuwe 
Kerk, at Amsterdam (Scheffer, p. 112 i, on the first 
of September, 1612. After his death his followers 
remained with the Mennonites and continued to 
knock at the door of their church for admission. 
With a purpose to further this interest they sent 
forth "The Last Booke of John Smyth, called the 
Retractation of His Errors and the Confirmation of 
the Truth." At the close of it were added "Propo- 
sitions and Conclusions Concerning the True Chris- 
tian Religion, Containing a Confession of Faith of 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 55 

Certain English People Living at Amsterdam." 
(The above was discovered in 1871 by Dr. Dexter, 
in the Library of York Minster, and is published in 
full between pp. 117 and 118 in Barclay, Inner Life 
of the Religious Societies of the Commonwealth, 
London, 1876.) 

Here, then, are four several Confessions of Faith, 
two by the party of Mr. Smyth, who were struggling 
for a place among the Mennonites of Amsterdam, 
and two by Helwys and his nine followers, who were 
struggling to maintain a separate and independent 
existence. We can perhaps find out what was the 
act of baptism among them by considering these 
documents in their historical setting. An impor- 
tant item of that historical setting is the fact already 
referred to that the Mennonites, with whom both par- 
ties were dealing, have never at any time or place 
been immersionists. They are unanimous in that 
contention, the most learned authorities as well as 
the common people. S. Muller, formerly one of 
the Professors at the Mennonite College in Amster- 
dam, and author of many learned works, says: 
"This mode of baptizing (sprinkling) was from the 
days of Menno the only usual mode amongst them, 
and it is still amongst us. The Waterlanders nor any 
other of the various parties of the Netherland 
Doopsgezinden practiced at any time "baptism by im- 
mersion. 1 '' (Evans, vol. 1, p. 223.) Sprinkling was 
"the only usual mode," though pouring was some- 



56 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

times employed; immersion was never resorted to 
at any time. The testimony of Prof. Scheffer has 
already been given. He asserts without qualifica- 
tion that immersion was never in use among the 
Mennonites. (Overzicht, p. 28.) 

Another important item is that the baptism of 
Smyth and his followers was the same as that of the 
Mennonites, namely, -sprinkling or pouring. A 
body of Mennonite ministers after strict examina- 
tion on the spot declared as follows on that point: 
"Therefore first of all we ministers have according 
to the desire of our brethren, summoned these Eng- 
lish before us, and again most perfecth r examined 
them as regards the doctrine of salvation and the 
government of the church, and also inquired for the 
foundation and form of their baptism, and- we have 
not found that there was any difference at all neither 
in, the one nor the other thing." (Evans, vol. 1, p. 
212.) 

A third important item is that there was no 
immersion practiced anywhere in Holland until the 
year 1620, one year after the rise of the Collegiants 
at Khynsburg, and that it was then introduced by 
John Geesteranus, who was the first of the Collegiants 
to submit to it. (Scheffer, Overzicht, p. 39.) 

The oldest confession of John Smyth, Art. 15, 
says: "Baptism is the external sign of the remis- 
sion of sins, of dying and of being made alive, and 
therefore does not belong to infants." Evans, vol. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 57 

1, p. 254. Cf. the Latin original, Scheffer, pp. 
170-1. 

The oldest confession of Thomas Helwys and his 
-church, Art. 10, says: "Baptism is the external 
sign of the remission of sins, of dying and renova- 
tion of life, and therefore does not pertain to in- 
fants." (Scheffer, p. 174, where the Latin original 
may be seen.) 

The second confession of Thomas Helwys and his 
church, Art. 14, says: "That baptism, or washing 
with water, is the outward manifestation of dying 
unto sin and walking in newness of life; and there- 
fore in no wise appertaineth to infants." (Crosby, 
vol. 2, Appendix I.) 

The second confession of John Smyth, Art. 70, 
.■says: "That the outward baptism of water is to be 
administered only upon such penitent and faithful 
persons as are (aforesaid), and not upon innocent in- 
fants or wicked persons. (Matt, iii., 2, 3, com- 
pared with Matt, xxviii., 19, 20, and John iv., 1.)" 

Art. 71: "That in baptism to the penitent person 
and believer there is presented and figured, the spir- 
itual baptism of Christ (that is) the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost and fire; the baptism into the death and 
resurrection of Christ; even the promise of the 
Spirit which he shall assuredly be made partaker of, 
if he continue to the end. Gal. iii., 14; Matt, iii., 
11; 1 Cor. xii., 13; Rom. vi., 3, 6; Col. ii., 10." 
{Barclay, between pp. 117 and 118.) 



58 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

None of these confessions prescribes immersion. 
When that form of administering the ordinance was 
once restored there was no difficulty in making it 
known by words like dip and plunge and immerse. 
These words do not occur here for the reason that 
no such custom was then contemplated. The article 
on baptism in the first confession of Helwys seems 
to have been borrowed from the same article in the 
first confession of Smyth. The article on baptism 
in the second confession of Helwys lays emphasis 
on the idea of purification and resembles in that 
point many Reformed or Presbyterian creeds that 
were at the time in common use. 

The two articles in the second confession of John 
Smyth, who at the moment when it was produced 
was trying to gain admission to the Mennonite body, 
show most resemblance to the Creed of Lubbert 
Gerrits and Hans de Iiies, that was subscribed by 
Smyth and his followers while they were waiting 
upon the convenience of the Mennonites. (Evans, 
vol. 1, pp. 245-252; consult Arts. 29, 30.) Of the 
four Confessions cited the last by Smyth appears to 
contain more expressions that could be interpreted 
in favor of immersion than either of the others, and 
yet if Smyth or his people had declared in favor of 
that rite they could never have expected to be re- 
ceived into the church upon which their hopes were 
set. 

After the death of Smyth his party continued to- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 59> 

appeal for admission to the Mennonite community, 
a favor which was at last bestowed on the 21st of 
January, 1615, without repeating the baptism, which 
they had previously received, it having been declared 
to be identical with that of the Mennonites. 

The relations between the Mennonites of Amster- 
dam and the Helwys church, after the latter had 
returned to England, were particularly intimate. In 
1624 Elias Tookey and his party of fifteen adherents 
who had been excluded from the church of John 
Murton in London endeavored to unite with the 
Amsterdam church. The points of difference be- 
tween them were duly discussed (Evans, vol. 2, pp. 
21-24 and pp. 32-40), but not a word was said re- 
garding the act of baptism, for the reason that no- 
differences existed on that score, both parties being 
in the practice of sprinkling or pouring. 

By the year 1626 John Murton had succeeded in 
organizing five churches of his persuasion in Eng- 
land, one each at London, Lincoln, Sarum, Coventry 
and Tiverton. (Evans, vol. 2, p. 26.) These were 
very small and all of them together only "counted 
a number in England of undoubtedly 150 persons."' 
(Evans, vol. 2, p. 25.) Barclay, Inner Life, p. 95, 
committed the blunder of asserting that the 150 
belonged to Murton's church at Newgate and that 
there were four other churches besides these. The 
other authorities have followed him industriously. 
(Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 323; Scheffer, D& 
Brownisten, p. 155.) 



60 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

For some reason Murton's associates became 
solicitous to join the Mennonites and sent two com- 
missioners to Holland for the purpose of carrying 
out that enterprise. (Evans, vol. 2, pp. 24, 25.) 
These commissioners bore a letter setting forth the 
items of difference between the followers of Helwys 
and the Mennonites, of which there were only five, 
namely, about the humanity of Jesus, about the law- 
fulness of an oath, about the necessity of celebrating 
the Lord's Supper every Sunday, whether the ordi- 
nances should be administered by lay members, and 
whether it is admissible for Christian men to hold 
civil office, and to bear the sword. (Evans, vol. 2, 
pp. 26-30.) In this letter the English expressly 
assert that "these are all the differences which we 
think to exist." (Evans, vol. 2, p. 30.) There was 
no difference whatever regarding the act of baptism, 
■since both parties still practiced sprinkling and 
pouring. 

After the decease of Helwys, John Murton stood 
at the head of the movement. He in turn passed 
away in 1630. At any rate his wife Jane, who was 
a daughter of Alexander Hogdkin (Scheffer, De 
Brownisten, p. 81), then went back to Amsterdam to 
live with her father and mother, these being still 
alive and members of theMennonite church. (Evans, 
vol. 2, p. 50. ) On the 26th of September, 1630, she 
was received into that church with four others, who 
possibly had returned with her, "because they were 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 61 

baptized formerly by Mr. Smyth." (Evans, vol. 1, 
p. 222.) Such an incident presupposes closer re- 
lations than could have existed had there been 
already a controversy as to the act of baptism be- 
tween the Memionites and the disciples of Helwys. 

Prof. Scheffer affirms that this intimate union con- 
tinued until the year 1641 when Richard Blunt went 
toRhynsburg, and receiving immersion at the hands 
of John Batten, returned to England and imparted it 
to the members of his church. "By that act," he 
adds, "the bond of fellowship with the Netherland 
Mennonites was first broken off, because from that 
moment forward the Mennonites were regarded as 
unbaptized people." (De Brownisten te Amster- 
dam, p. 156.) 

After surveying these facts Dr. Evans, by all 
means the best equipped of English Baptist his- 
torians, is much staggered regarding the point in 
question. He cites the statement of the editor 
of Robinson's works, who declares that "nothing 
appears in the controversial writings of Smyth 
and Helwys to warrant the supposition that they 
regarded immersion as the proper and only mode 
of administering the ordinance," and adds, "in this 
opinion Dr. Muller fully agrees. But was it so? 
"We cannot pronounce positively, but are bound 
to confess that the probabilities are greatly in its 
favor." (Evans, vol. 2, p. 52.) On another page 
he says: "Upon the cause of the deputation to Hoi- 



62 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

land (sending of Richard Blunt) we have commented 
already. Most will now see that the practice of the 
Mennonite brethren (sprinkling) was common in this 
country. These 'new men' soon cast them into the 
shade and their practice speedily became obsolete. 
Immersion as the mode of baptism became the rule 
with both sections of the Baptist community. M 
(Evans, vol. 2, p. 79.) 

It will now be appropriate to consider certain ob- 
jections that have been urged against the conclusion 
that the people later known as General Baptists in 
England employed only sprinkling or pouring for 
baptism prior to the year 1641. 

The first of these is found in a fabulous statement 
under the pretended date of March 24, 1606, as fol- 
lows: "This night at midnight Elder John Murton 
baptized John Smith, vicar of Gainsborough in the 
river Don. It was so dark wee were obliged to have 
torch-lights. Elder Brewster prayed and Mr. Smith 
made a good confession. Walked to Epworth in his 
cold clothes, but received no harm. The distance 
was over two miles. All our friends were present. 
A strong wind, but faire above-head. To ye triune 
God be all ye praise." Dexter, True Story, p. Q6. 

This fabrication originated among the General 
Baptists of Lincolnshire, England, and purports to 
be a transcript from the "Ancient Records" of the 
Church of Christ, meeting at Epworth, Crowle and 
"West Butterwick. No sadder humiliation has ever 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 63 

been inflicted upon our Baptist name and cause. 
The fact that it could be put forth under the auspices 
of Rev. John Clifford, M.A.,LL.B., reflects a pain- 
ful light upon the condition of studies in Baptist 
history among the Baptists of England. Copious 
extracts from it appeared first in the General Bap- 
tist Magazine, London, 1879, p. 327 and p. 438, of 
which Mr. Clifford was editor. As if that were not 
sufficient to fill up the cup of our mortification, a 
volume was subsequently issued to set it forth anew 
under the title of "The English Baptists, Who they 
Are and What they have Done. Edited by John 
Clifford, M.A., LL.B., London, E. Marlborough & 
Co., 1881." 

This fable has been sufficiently exposed by Dr. 
H. M. Dexter, (True Story of John Smyth the Se- 
Baptist, Boston, 1881, pp. 63-86,) and the justice 
of his representations is acknowledged by scholars 
everywhere. Prof. Scheffer declares, (Overzicht, 
p. 12, note 3,) that "he has demonstrated beyond 
refutation that the so-called 'Ancient Records' are 
nothing else than an unworthy instance of decep- 
tion." It would carry us too far to enter into all 
the details of this fraud, and we must be content in 
this place merely to show that its authority cannot 
stand against the well established authority of con- 
temporary history. 

The assertion that John Murton baptized John 
Smyth, vicar of Gainsborough, in the river Don on 



U A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

the 24th of March, 1606, is contradicted by the tes- 
timony of John Smyth himself. In his work en- 
titled, Parables, Censures, Observations, Aperteyn- 
ing, etc., printed in 1609, and written certainly after 
March 21, 1606, Mr. Smyth denounces the Anabap- 
tists in a way to demonstrate that he could not yet 
have been one of them. On pp. 13 and 11 he says: 
"I demaund of you: do you think that God accepteth 
the prayers and Religious Exercises of the Papists, 
the Arrians. the Anabaptists^ the Familists or any 
other heretiques or Antichristians \ if not what is the 
true cause that God accepteth them not ? is it not 
that there is not that true communion of the Saynts 
there, the true Spouse of Christ, the Spiritual Tem- 
ple where God hath provided his presence?" If 
Smyth had joined the Anabaptist party in 1606, lie 
could not have classed them with "Papists, Arrians, 
Familists and other heretiques or Antichristians" in 
a work written more than a year later. 

Furthermore this deception can not outweigh the 
authority of Mr. Smyth himself when he confesses 
that he baptized himself. It has been shown above 
that this step was performed in October, 1608, and 
that before the month of March, 1609, he had re- 
pented the act and was knocking at the door of the 
Mennonite Church in Amsterdam for admission. 
In the archives of that church is still preserved a 
confession of sorrow for their disorderly conduct in 
baptizing themselves, which is composed in the Latin 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 65 

language, in the handwriting of Smyth (Scheffer, 
De Brownisten, p. 128, note 2), and subscribed by 
himself and thirty-one of his followers. This is 
found printed somewhat incorrectly in Evans, vol. 
1, pp. 244-5, and an English translation is also 
given, Evans, vol. 1, p. 209. A correct copy is 
published by Scheffer, De Brownisten te Amster- 
dam, p. 128. Dr. Dexter has inserted it in a note 
at the foot of page 31 of the True Story of John 
Smyth, including one of the blunders made by 
Evans. It may be translated as follows: "Names 
of the English people who acknowledge this their 
error and repent of the same, namely, that they un- 
dertook to baptize themselves contrary to the order 
established by Christ, and who now desire to unite 
with this true Church of Christ with all possible ex- 
pedition." Here Mr. Smyth concedes that he bap- 
tized himself. 

In the Character of the Beast, printed in 1609, p. 
58, he also concedes this point: "If all the com- 
mandments of God must be obeyed, then this of 
baptism, and this warrant is sufficient for assuming 
baptism. Now, for baptizing a man's self there is 
as good warrant as for a mail's churching himself; 
for two men singly are no church, jointly they are a 
church, and they both of them put a church upon 
themselves; for as both these persons unchurched, 
yet have power to assume the church, each of them 
for himself and others in communion, so each of 



66 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

them unbaptized hath power to assume baptism for 
himself with others in communion." (Hanbury, 
Historical Memorials Relating to the Independents, 
London, 1839, vol. 1, p. 267, note.) 

Again, in the Last Booke of John Smyth as print- 
ed in Barclay's Inner Life of the Religious Societies 
of the Commonwealth, as an appendix to chapter VI. 
the following statements are found on page V. : 
"Thirdly, Master Helwys said that although there 
be churches already established, ministers ordained 
and sacraments administered orderly, yet men are 
not bound to join those former churches, but may, 
being as yet unbaptized, baptise themselves (as we 
did) and proceed to build churches of themselves. 

Only this is it which I held, that seeing 

there was no church to whom we could join with a 
good conscience to have baptism from them, there- 
fore we might baptize ourselves." 

In view of these three confessions by Mr. Smyth 
that he baptized himself it is vain to appeal to the 
fraud that has been foisted upon our Denomination 
by the English General Baptists. This is the first 
instance in our history where resort has been had to 
such unworthy means to support our cause. Let us 
trust in God that it shall also be the last. 

The Mennonite ministers whose church he was 
trying to join also admit that Mr. Smyth baptized 
himself. They desired their brethren with whom 
they corresponded on the subject of receiving Smyth 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 67 

and his followers: "to take into consideration and 
distinguish the baptism of those that are baptized by 
their minister himself, for we ourselves do distin- 
guish the act of baptizing by which he has baptised 
hi?nself\ this is an affair quite different." (Evans, 
vol. 1, p. 213). 

If Mr. Smyth and his friends both unite in the ad- 
mission that he baptized himself the case will become 
only so much stronger when his opponents join their 
testimony to the volume of proof. Witnesses from 
that side are too numerous and circumstantial to be 
cited in this place, and it must suffice to refer to 
such men as John Robinson who was present in 
Amsterdam when the occurrence took place, Relig- 
ious Communion, 1614, Ashton's ed., p. 168; 
Henry Ainsworth, also present, in his Defence of 
the Holy Scriptures, Worship, etc., 1609, p. 69 and 
p. 82; R. Clyfton, also present, in his Rlea for In- 
fants, 1610, Answer to Epistle, and divers other 
writers. 

The second objection is drawn from the case of Mr. 
Leonard Busher, who in his work entitled Religion's 
Peace or a Flea for Liberty of Conscience, published 
by the Hanserd Knollys Society, Tracts on Liberty of 
Conscience, London, 1846, p. 59, says: "And such 
as shall willingly and gladly receive it (the Word), 
He hath commanded to be baptized in the water, 
that is dipped for dead in the water." It is some- 
times too confidently assumed that this passage 



68 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

proves Mr. Busher to have been an immersionist 
in practice as well as in principle, but we know 
too little regarding him to venture distinct as- 
sertions on that point. He was a citizen of Lon- 
don, as appears from the title of his book, and 
a faithful and loving subject of the king of England 
(Religion's Peace, p. 26), whose ancestors may have 
come from Holland (Evans, vol. 1, p. 229, note) 
and who himself had connections there. He was also 
an Anabaptist, and, with his followers, resided in 
Amsterdam. Dr. Dexter (Congregationalism as 
Seen in its Literature, New York, 1880, p. 322, note 
117) says: "Matthew Saunders and Cuthbert Hut- 
ton, in their letter to Johnson's church (Lawne's 
Profane Schisme, etc., p. 56), under date of 8 July, 
1611, speak of three kinds of English Anabaptists 
then in Amsterdam, viz: 'Easter Smyth, an Ana- 
baptist of one sort, and Master Helwise of another, 
and Master Busher of another.' " He also was re- 
siding in the Netherlands while engaged in writing 
his book, which it will be remembered was first pub- 
lished in 1614. On page 77 of that work he says: 
"I read that in the Netherlands above a hundred 
thousand persons have been put to death for relig- 
ion. But now, praised be God, we have no such 
woful tidings preached among us (in Holland). The 
Lord work as much in our land (England) I beseech 
him! that so you may no longer burn and banish the 
servants of Christ." He was glad to lead a peace- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 69 

able and quiet life in the Low countries, but he de- 
plored the fact that his majesty's faithful subjects 
could not do this even in their own nation (pp. 
79-80). 

Was the first edition of his book in 1614 pub- 
lished at London or at Amsterdam? Hitherto it has 
been impossible to discover an edition earlier than 
that of 1646, and hence this question can not be an- 
swered. Did he ever return from Holland to Eng- 
land? That inquiry must also be left unsolved. If 
he failed to return to England at all he does not come 
within the range of the present inquiry, which refers 
only to that country. The act of baptism observed by 
him would in that case become a question for Dutch 
archaeologists. But either Dutch or English archae- 
ologists, founding on the mere fact that he was an 
immersionist in principle, must jump a long dis- 
tance to the conclusion that he was also an immer- 
sionist in practice. It is clear that he had small re- 
spect for the labors of Helwys at Newgate in Lon- 
don, not being willing to recognize Helwys' church 
as a "right visible congregation" (Religion's Peace, 
p. 25), but that opposition might have resulted, not 
from the circumstance that they practiced sprinkling 
while he practiced immersion, but possibly because 
they were Arminians and he was a Calvinist. In brief 
words, Mr. Busher is a shadowy figure, and it is en- 
tirely uncertain whether he spent his last years in 
England or Holland. Therefore, we are not enti- 



70 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

tied, for the present at least, to establish any definite 
conclusions regarding him or his people, except that 
if he had practiced immersion at Amsterdam in 1611 
we should have been likely to hear a good deal more 
about him than has been brought to light hitherto. 

I have already shown in Chapter III. that none of 
the Anabaptists of Holland were in the practice of 
immersion prior to the year 1620 at which time the 
rite was introduced again into that country by John 
Geesteranus at Rhynsburg. The most that can be 
safely claimed for Mr. Busher is that he was an ad- 
vance herald of genuine Baptist principles in Hol- 
land, that were shortly to be reduced to practice in 
England. His Calvinistic views would in due time 
naturally commend his views regarding immersion 
to the favorable attention of the Jessey church, when 
they in their turn should set about considering that 
subject. 

The last objection is drawn singularly enough 
from Dr. Featley's Dippers Dipt, which stands 
among the books of the period that are most distinct 
in asserting that immersion was a splinter new prac- 
tice in England in the year 1611, when it first came 
from the press. The argument is given on page 11 1 of 
the History of the Baptists by Dr. Armitage, New 
York, 1887, and is mended and improved on p. 458. 
A passage is there chosen from page 3 of the Epistle 
Dedicatory where Featley is describing the practices 
of the Anabaptists at the time when he wrote, namely 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 71 

in 1644, the book having issued from the press on 
the 10th of January of that year. (Crosby, 1, 304.) 
He relates as follows: "They flock in great mul- 
titudes to their Jordans and both sexes enter into 

the Rivers and are dipt after their manner 

And as they defile our Rivers with their impure 
washings and our pulpits with their false Proph- 
ecies and Phanaticall Enthusiasmes, so the press- 
es sweat and groane under the load of their blas- 
phemies." Then passing over nearly three pages 
and coming to a connection where nothing is said 
about immersion he selects the following passage 

"This venomous Serpent (vere Solifuga) 

is the Anabaptist who in these later times first 
showed his shining head and speckled skin and 
thrust out his sting near the place of my resi- 
dence, for more than twenty years." Dr. Feat- 
ley in the last sentence undertakes to declare that 
the Anabaptists who were at that period in the prac- 
tice of sprinkling had showed themselves near the 
place of his residence more than twenty years pre- 
viously, while in the first two sentences he describes 
the practice that they had only recently introduced, 
"since the waters were troubled'''' and the nation had 
been thrown into confusion. The argument of Dr. 
Armitage to the effect that the Anabaptists, according 
to Dr. Featley, had been engaged in dipping for more 
than twenty years near the place of his residence is 
therefore inadmissible. The authority to which he 



72 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

refers intends to convey no such impression. On the 
contrary, in another place, Preface to the Reader 
(near the close), he gives a distinct note of time indi- 
cating the exact period at which dipping commenced. 
"But of late," he says, "since the unhappy distracbwm 
which our sins have brought upon us, the Teinporall 
Sword being other ways employed and the Sjnrituall 
locked up fast in tht Seabbard, this sect among others 
hath so far presumed upon the patience of the State 
that it hath held weekly Conventicles, rebaptized 
hundreds of men and women together in the twilight, 
in Rivelets and some arms of the Thames and Else- 
where, dipping them over head and ears." The un- 
happy distractions here mentioned began in Eng- 
land in 1640. It was only after that time that 
the "Temporall Sword was other ways employed 
and the Spirituall was locked up fast in the Scab- 
bard. " When Dr. Armitage cites this last passage 
in page 458 of his History, the note of time is 
omitted and he charges that Featley "contradicts 
himself several times." The facts will not sustain 
this charge; Dr. Featley does not contradict him- 
self. Everything that he utters anywhere in his 
volume conforms strictly with the statement made, 
Dippers Dipt, London, 1644, p. 187, where he is 
discussing the Fortieth Article of the Baptist Con- 
fession of Faith, that prescribes "dipping or plung- 
ing as the way and manner of administering the 
ordinance of baptism." In that place he declares: 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 73 

"This Article is wholly sowsed with the new leaven 
of Anabaptisme. I say the new, leaven, for it can 
not be proved that any of the ancient Anabaptists 

maintained any such position It is not es- 

sentiall to Baptisme, neither doe the texts in the 
margent conclude any such thing. It is true John 
baptized Christ in the River, but the Text saith not 
that either the Eunuch or Christ himself, or any 
baptized by John or his Disciples, or any of Christ's 
Disciples were dipped, plunged or dowsed over head 
and ears, as this Article implyeth and our Anabap- 
tists now practice." 

Once more; Dr. Featley resided in Southwark, 
just south of the Thames, in London, where he had 
two livings, one the rectory of Lambeth and the 
■other of Acton. (Neal, History of the Puritans, Bos- 
ton, 1817, vol. 3, p. 320.) But the Jessey Church 
was also situated in Southwark, and it was there that 
Featley held the famous debate with the Anabap- 
tists in 1642 which became the foundation of the 
work known as the Dippers Dipt. The Jessey Church 
was therefore in the immediate vicinity of the Doctor's 
residence, and some of them may have known him 
very well. Mr. Kiffin, one of his opponents in the 
debate, had been a member of the Jessey Church 
down to the year 1641, at which time he joined the 
Baptists. (Gould, Open Communion and the Baptists 
of Norwich, Introduction, p. cxxviii.) 

The statement of the Jessey Church Records is 



li A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

positive and unqualified — "none having then so 
practiced in England to professed believers." It 
embraces the whole of England in general, and in 
particular every foot of the Borough of Southwark, 
where Dr. Featley and they lived as neighbors to- 
gether and seems to exclude the notion that anybody 
could have been practicing immersion in the Borough 
for more than twenty years. On the other hand, the 
declaration by Featley is not positive and uncondi- 
tional: it is a mere inference drawn by putting to- 
gether certain statements that he has made in dif- 
ferent portions of his volume. 

The Borough in those days may have contained as 
many as seven or ten thousand inhabitants. If any- 
body had been immersing at Lambeth, near Dr. 
Featley's residence, for more than twenty years 
there is scarcely one chance in a million that the 
men of the Jessey Church would not have become 
aware of it. And there is scarcely one chance in 
ten millions that Dr. Featley, who was an outsider, 
should have heard of these immersions, while the 
men of the Jessey Church remained in ignorance of 
them. 

In view of all these considerations I am not able 
to attach any importance to the claim that Dr. 
Featley teaches that the Anabaptists had been im- 
mersing near the place of his residence for more 
than twenty years. In fact I cannot perceive that 
he has made such an assertion: 1 prefer to stand 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 75- 

by the positive unconditional assertion of his imme- 
diate neighbors in the Borough of Southwark when, 
in 1640, they assert — "none having then so prac- 
ticed in England to professed believers." 

The facts above set forth are all in harmony with- 
the representations contained in the Records of a 
Church of Christ, meeting in Broadmead, Bristol, 
1640-1687, Hanserd Knollys Society, London, 1817. 
These Records were composed by Mr. Edward Terrill, 
an honored Ruling Elder, who was born in 1631 or 
1635 (Records, p. 63, note) and joined the church in 
1658 (Records, p. 57). He began the labor of writ- 
ing down the Records in the year 1672 (Underbill's 
Introduction to Records, p. xciv; cf. Records, p. 17). 
As he was only five or six years of age in 1610, when 
the events he describes began to take place, he was- 
not an eyewitness of them. It was thirty-two years 
after the earliest of them occurred before he set pen 
to paper. Nevertheless his account may be accepted 
as, perhaps, substantially accurate. 

He says "that in the year of our forever blessed 
Redeemer, the Lord Jesus (1610), one thousand six 
hundred and forty, those five persons, namely Good- 
man Atkins of Stapleton, Goodman Cole, a butcher 
of Lawford's Gate, Richard Moone, a farrier in Wine 
Street, and Mr. Bacon, a young minister, with Mrs. 
Hazzard, at Mrs. Hazzard's house at the upper end 
of Broad Street, in Bristol, they met together and. 
came to a holy resolution to separate from the wor- 



76 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

ship of the world and times they lived in 

"Shortly after this on a time called Easter, be- 
cause Mr. Hazzard could not in conscience give the 
Sacrament to the people of the parish, he went out 
of town and took that season to visit his kindred at 
Lyme. And at that juncture of time the providence 
of God brought to this city one Mr. Canne, a baptized 
man. It was that Mr. Canne that made notes and 
references upon the Bible. He was a man very 
eminent in his day for godliness and for reformation 
in religion, having great understanding in the way of 
the Lord." (Broadmead Records, pp. 17,18.) 

"And on the Lord's day following he preached at 
a place called Westerleigh, about seven miles from 
this city; and many of the professors from hence 
went thither to hear him, with Mrs. Hazzard, willing 
to enjoy such a light as long as they could; where 
he had liberty to preach in the public place called a 
church in the morning, but in the afternoon could 
not have entrance. The obstruction was by a very 
godly, great woman that dwelt in that place, who 
was somewhat severe in the profession of what she 
knew, hearing that he was a baptized man, by them 
called an anabaptist, which was to some sufficient 
cause of prejudice; because the truth of believer's 
baptism had been for a long time buried, yea for a 
long time by popish inventions, and their sprinkling 
brought in the room thereof. " (Broadmead Records, 
p. 19.) 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 77 

Rev. Charles Stovel has published an excellent 
biography of Mr. Canne in the volume entitled, A 
Necessity of Separation from the Church of England 
Proved by the Nonconformists Principles. By John 
Canne, Pastor of the Ancient English Church in 
Amsterdam. Hanserd Knollys Society, London, 
1849. This learned author is an adept in Puritan 
chronology as the same is employed by Mr. Terrill 
in the Broadmead Records. Referring to the pas- 
sages I have given above, Mr. Stovel says: "When 
introduced to us in the Broadmead Records at 
Easter, after 1640, that is April the 25th, 1641, he 
[Mr. Canne] appears to have been received as a man 

who was well known, and eminently respected 

When he could gain access to the public place of 
worship he used it; and when driven out because he 
was 'a baptist' — 'a baptized man' — he retired to the 
Green, — meeting the opponents by reasonings not 
to be refuted, and, everywhere, speaking with fer- 
vor and effect to an awakened empire." (Introduc- 
tory Notice, pp. x,xi.) In a chronological arrange- 
ment of his life (Introductory Notice, p. xxviii) Mr. 
Stovel says: "1641, Canne is at Bristol, April 25. "\ 
This would agree to a nicety with the fact that Blunt 
had begun the practice of immersion in Southwark,. 
London, early in the year 1641, after his return from 
Holland, whither he had gone to obtain it in 1640. 
Mr. Canne, who was well acquainted in Southwark,. 
appears to have submitted to the ordinance very- 



'78 ' A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

promptly in 1641, and was in time to reach Bristol 
by the 25th of April, 1611. 

In the year 1613 are found traces of immersed 
believers in Bristol (Records, pp. 30,31), and in 1652 
there is evidence of the existence of a church (Pithay) 
of which all the members were immersed (Rec- 
ords, p. 11): and in the year 1653 some baptisms 
are mentioned as administered in a river (Records, 
p. 42). The following quotation from the Records, 
p. 92, will show that at the date mentioned there 
was a regular place in Frome River for the rite of 
immersion: "These ten men and four women were 
all fourteen baptized together one after another, the 
sixth day of the first month 1666 [1667], in the 
-evening, at Baptist Mills, in the river by Mr. Thomas, 
minister." It will be observed that the title "Baptist 
Mills'' is first employed in the Records twenty-five 
years after the introduction of immersion into Eng- 
land in 1611. 

Prof. Masson, in his Life and Times of Milton, 
London, 1873, vol. 3, p. 104, says that "Helwys' folk 
differed from the Independents not only on the sub- 
ject of infant baptism and dipping, but also on the 
power of the magistrate." It is true that Helwys 
and his people differed from the Independents on the 
subject of infant baptism, but as was shown above, 
they did not differ on the subject of dipping. On 
the contrary, they were in accord with the Independ- 
ents in practicing sprinkling and pouring for bap- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 79 

tism. The work of Masson was issued three years 
before that of Barclay on the Inner Life of the Be- 
ligious Societies of the Commonwealth, which marks 
a distinct advance in Baptist history. Masson had 
great learning, but he had given no special attention 
to this department, and his views were entirely those 
of traditional writers on the subject. They do not 
require to be considered in this place. His blunder 
is due to nothing else than the circumstance that he 
had not become aware of the progress that has been 
made in recent years in this line of research. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



VI. 

GENUINE ANCIENT RECORDS. 

AN instrument of writing designated as the Kiffin 
manuscript has played a large role in our Bap- 
tist history. The name of the author is entirely un- 
known. It has been traditionally ascribed to Wm. 
Kiffin, who was a prominent character among Eng- 
lish Baptists, and left behind a manuscript account 
of his life, selections from which have been pub- 
lished by Ivimey, (History of the English Baptists, 
London, 1814, vol. 2, pp. 297-322). No writer on 
Baptist history has ever rejected the authority of this 
manuscript, ai^d down to a comparatively recent 
period none of its statements were subjected to 
criticism. 

I recently undertook some researches in this 
field which were rewarded by finding a still earlier 
manuscript on the same subject. It was rescued by 
Rev. George Gould from amongst the manuscripts 
of Mr. H. Jessey, who in 1637 became pastor of the 
Ancient Independent Church that had been founded 
at London in 1616 by Mr. Henry Jacobs, and bears 
the following title: "The Records of an Ancient 
Congregation of Dissenters, from wch many of ye 
Independent and Baptist Churches in London took 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 81 

their first rise." (Gould, Open Communion and the 
Baptists of Norwich, Introduction, pp. cxxi and 
cxxii.) These singularly valuable records, which 
must be still in existence since Gould had them in 
his possession in 1860 (Open Communion, Intro- 
duction, p. cxxiii), ought by all means to be published 
in facsimile, and whoever accomplishes that task 
will render an important service to Baptist history. 
Mr. Gould prints only "certain entries" found in 
them (Introduction, p. cxxii), and these do not quite 
cover all the ground occupied by the so-called Kiffin 
manuscript. To facilitate comparison both docu- 
ments will be found printed in parallel columns be- 
low, the one under the title of Jessey Church Kecords 
and the other as the so-called Kiffin manuscript. 

JESSEY CHUKCH RECORDS. SO-CALLED KIFFIN MANUSCRIPT. 

There was a congregation of Protest- 
ant Dissenters of the independant Per- 
suasion in London, gathered in the 
year 1616, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob 
was the first pastor; and after him suc- 
ceeded Mr. John Lathorp, who was 
their minister at this time. In this 
1633. There haveing beeD much dis- society several persons finding that the 
cussing, These denying Truth of ye congregations kept not to their first 
Parish Churches, and ye Church being principles of separation, and being also 
now become so large yt it might be convinced that (1) baptism was not to 
prejudicial, These following desired be administered to infants, but such 
dismission, that they might become an only as professed faith in Christ, de- 
Entire Church, and (2) further ye Com- sired that they might be dismissed from 
munion of those Churches in Order that communion, and allowed to form 
amongst themselves, wch at last was a distinct congregation in such order as 
granted to them, and performed, Sept. was most agreeable to their own Senti- 
12, 1633, viz. ments. 

Henry Parker & wife. Jo. Milburn. The church considering that they 

Widd. Fearne. Arnold. were now grown very numerous, and so 

[Green] Hatmaker. Mr. Wilson. more than could in these times of per- 
Mark Luker. Tho. Allen. secution conveniently meet together, 

Mary Milburn. and believing also that those persons 

acted from a principle of conscience, 
To These Joyned Rich. Blunt, Tho. and not obstinacy, agreed to allow them 
Hubert, Rich. Tredwell, and his Wife the liberty they'desired, and that they 



s2 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



Kath., John Trimber, Win. Jennings 
and Sam Eaton, Mary Greenway, (3) 
Mr. Eaton wth some others receiving a 
further Baptism. 
Others Joyned to them. 

1638. These also being of ye same 
Judgment wth Bam Eaton, and desir- 
ing to depart and not be censured, our 
intrest in them was remitted, wth 
Prayer made in their behalf, June 8, 
1638. They hareing first forsaken Us, 
and Joyned wth Mr. Spilsbury, viz. 
Mr. Peti Ferrer. Win. Batty. 
Hen. Pen. Mrs.Allen (died 1639). 

Tho. Wilson. Mr. Norwood. 

Gould Open Communion and the 
Baptists of Norwich, Intro, p. cxxii. 

1640. 3d Mo [May]. The Church 
[whereof Mr. Jacob and Mr. John La- 
thorp had been Pastors], became two 
by mutual consent, just half being with 
Mr.F.Barebone, and ye other halfewth 
Mr. H. Jessey. (8) -Mr. Bichd Blunt 
wth him. being convinced of Baptism, 
vt also it ought to be by diping ye 
Body into ye Water, resembling Burial 
and riseing again, Col. II., 12: Rom. 
VI., 4: bad sober Conferance about it 
in ye Church, and and then wth some 
of the forenamed, who also ivere so con- 
vinced: And after Prayer and Confer- 
ance about their so enjoying it, none 
having then so practiced in England 
to professed Believers, and hearing 
that some in the Nether Lands had so 
practiced, they agreed and sent over 
Mr. Rich'd Blunt (who understood 
Dutch i wth Letters of Comendation, 
who was kindly accepted there, and 
Returned wth Letters from them, Jo. 
Batten a Teacher there, and from that 
Church to such as sent him. 

1641. They proceed on therein, viz. 
Those persons yt ware perswaded Bap- 
tism should be by dipping ye Body ,bad 
niett in (9) two Companies, and did in- 
tend so to meet after this: all these 
agreed to proceed alike togeather : and 
then Manifesting (not by any formal 
Words) a Covenant (web Word was 
Scrupled by some of thenn but by mu- 
tual desires and agreement each testi- 
fied: These two Compauyes did set 
apart one to Baptize the rest, so it was 
Solemnly performed by them. 

Mr. Blunt baptized Mr. Blacklock, 
yt was a Teacher amongst them, and 
Mr. Blunt being baptized, he and Mr. 
Blacklock Baptized ye rest of their 



should be constituted a distinct church; 
which was performed the 12th of Sept. 
1633. And as they believed that bap- 
tism was not rightly administered to 
infants, so they looked upon the bap- 
tism they had received in that age as 
invalid : whereupon most or all of them 
received a new baptism. (5) Their 
minister was Mr. John Spilsbury. 
What number they were is uncertain, 
because in the mentioning of the 
names of about twenty men and wo- 
men it is added, with divers others. 

In theyearl63sMr.William(«)Kimn. 
Mr. Thomas Wilson, and others being 
of the same judgment, were upon their 
request, dismissed to the said Mr. Spils- 
bury's congregation. 

(7) In the year 1639 another congre- 
gation of Baptists was formed, whose 
place of meeting was in Outched— 
Fryars: the chief promoters of which 
were Mr. Green, Mr. Paul Hobson and 
Captain Spencer. 

Croshy, vol. l, pp. 148-9. 

For in the year 1640, this church lie- 
came two by consent; just half, says 
the manuscript, being with Mr. P. 
Barebone, and the other half with Mr. 

Henry .lessey. 

< rosby, vol" ::, p. 41. 
Several sober and pious persons be- 
longing to the congregations of the dis- 
senters about London were convinced 
that believers were the only proper 
subjects of baptism and that it ought 
to be administered by immersion or 
dipping the whole body into the water, 
in resemblance of a burial and resur- 
rection according to Colos. II., 12 and 
Rom. VI., 4. That they often met to- 
gether to pray and confer about this 
matter and to consult what methods 
they should take to enjoy this ordin- 
ance in its primitive purity: Thai they 
could not be satisfyed about any ad- 
ministrator in England, to begin this 
practice ; because tho' some in this na- 
tion rejected the baptism of infants, 
yet they had not as they knew of re- 
vived the ancient custom of immersion: 
But hearing that some in the Nether- 
lands practiced it, they agreed to send 
over one Mr. Richard Blunt, who un- 
derstood the Dutch language: That he 
went accordingly carrying letters of 
recommendation with him and was 
kindly received both by the church 
there' and Mr. John Batten their 
teacher. 

That upon his return he baptized 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 83 



friends yt ware so minded, and many Mr. Samuel Blacklock, a minister and 

being added to them they increased these two baptized the rest of their 

much." company, [whose names are in the 

Gould, Open Communion and the manuscript to the number of fifty- 

Baptists of Norwich, Intro, pp. cxxiii, three], 

cxxiv. " Crosby, vol. 1, pp. 101-2. 



It will be apparent even upon casual observation 
that the second of the above papers is either derived 
from the first or from independent tradition of the 
facts set forth in the first. It is, therefore, confess- 
edly inferior to the contemporary record, but it is 
still not unworthy of the confidence that has always 
been bestowed upon it. 

It may be entertaining to observe the items in 
which the later account varies from the earlier. 
These items will be indicated by figures set down in 
the text above to which like figures will correspond 
in this place. In describing the events of the year 
1633 the later account lays greater emphasis upon 
(1) opposition to infant baptism which is twice defi- 
nitely alluded to, whereas the earlier merely speaks 
of "much discussing, these denying Truth of ye 
Parish Churches," presumably in divers other points 
as well as regarding infant baptism. 

(2) The seceding church demanded that they should 
be retained by the Congregationalists in "ye Com- 
munion of those Churches in Order amongst them- 
selves," whether the same were situated in Eng- 
land or Holland or America; but that has very nat- 
urally faded out of the later account entirely. 
(3) The earlier account says, "Mr. Eaton wth some 



84 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

others receiving a further baptism"; the later account 
makes somewhat elaborate explanations to the effect 
that "as they believed that baptism was not rightly 
administered to infants, so they looked upon the 
baptism they had received in that age as invalid : 
whereupon most or all of them received a new bap- 
tism." In point of fact only a small proportion 
of them appear to have received a further baptism. 
This constitutes an instance of exaggeration, but it is 
hardly of sufficient consequence to invalidate the 
authority of the later account. 

(4) Mr. Samuel Eaton, the leader in procuring a 
further baptism in 1633 was also prominent in that 
regard in 1638, according to the earlier account. Is 
it possible that he is the same Samuel Eaton who 
became pastor of the Congregational Church at New 
Haven, Conn., when it was established on the 22d 
of August, 1639, (Dexter, Congregationalism, p. 
413, note; cf. p. 587, note) and returning to England 
in 1640 founded the Congregational Church at Duck- 
ingfield (Dexter, p. 635, note). 

(5) The later account has blundered in asserting 
that John Spilsbury was minister of the church at 
the time of its secession in 1633, but the earlier ren- 
ders it clear that he was acting in that character in 
1638. (6) It has also blundered in asserting that 
William Kiffin joined Spilsbury's church in 1638. 
That was the year in which he "united with an In- 
dependent congregation" (Ivimey, 2, 304) which must 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 85 

have been Mr. Jessey's church. The earlier account 
shows that he did not join Spilbury's church at this 
time, and I have found no contemporary evidence 
that he ever at any time belonged to it. 

(7) What the later account says about the forma- 
tion of a church in Crutched-Fryars in 1639 may 
be correct or it may not. Nothing in the earlier 
gives support to it, and Dr. Dexter (Congregation- 
ism, pp. 649-50) appears to claim Mr. Green (who 
is set down among the members of Crutched-Fryars 
Church) as a Brownist. The omission of many names 
and dates in the later account is a striking feature. 
It is here that the earlier everywhere vindicates its 
superiority. Let it be observed that the term Bap- 
tist as applied in this connection to a religious De- 
nomination occurs in the later and not in the earlier 
account. 

The second division of the Jessey Church Records, 
beginning with the disruption of Jessey's church in 
1640, is perhaps the most important. That disrup- 
tion would appear to have been occasioned by the 
circumstance that one section of the church were in- 
clined to move more rapidly in the direction of re- 
form than the other. Those who desired to remain 
upon the strictly Independent foundation hitherto 
occupied by the church rallied to Mr. P. Barebone, 
while those who were willing to travel beyond that 
position gathered about the regular pastor, Mr. 
Jessey. 



86 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

(8) Mr. Richard Blunt who had gone forth with 
the secession in 1633, had meanwhile returned to 
Mr. Jessey's church and in 1610 sided with the 
party of the pastor. In addition he had become 
"convinced of baptism yt also it ought to be by dip- 
ing ye Body into ye Water, resembling Burial 
and riseing again, Col. II., 12 and Rom. VI., 4." 
Why should he have been inclined to lay stress upon 
this particular argument, among so many others, in 
favor of immersion ? That was the argument and 
those were the passages of Scripture urged in sup- 
port of immersion by Leonard Busher (H. K. Soc. 
Tracts on Liberty of Conscience, pp. 59, 60). Were 
these brethren acquainted with Rusher's Treatise on 
Religion's Peace, and did they know anything about 
the author of it ? If they knew him they were aware 
that he had not introduced immersion into England, 
for they expressly declare that '•'•none had then so 
practiced in England to professed believers. ' ' If he 
had spent his last days in Holland as was intimated 
above, they perhaps knew also that he had not intro- 
duced immersion there, for they sent to the Colle- 
giants and not to Busher or his followers to obtain 
it. The apparent connection between Blunt and 
Busher at this point may be thought to lessen the 
possibility that Busher had ever been an immersion- 
ist in practice. 

(9) There were, according to the earlier records, 
"two companies" who introduced immersion into 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 87 

England. Richard Blunt and his friends in the Jes- 
sey Church on the one part first "had sober confer- 
ance about it in ye Church." After that they also 
had conference "wth some of 'the forenamed" who 
were all members of Mr. Spilsbury's church. In 
1641 these two parties "had mett in two companies 
and did intend so to meet after this," and these 
"two companies" did each set apart one to baptize 
the rest, Mr. Blunt baptizing those from the Jessey 
Church, and Mr. Blacklock those from the Spilsbury 
Church, after Mr. Blacklock had first received bap- 
tism from Blunt, who in his turn had received it in 
Holland. 

The general result of our investigation is that these 
two documents complement and mutually support 
each other. The earlier demonstrates that the later 
is not far astray, while the later casts a better light 
upon the earlier and imparts additional force and 
certainty to its statements. 

Certain items rise above others in importance in 
these documents. The first of these is the positive 
statement under the year 1640 found in the Jessey 
Church Records regarding immersion: "none having 
then so practiced in England to professed believers." 
In the other manuscript that point is less definitely ex- 
pressed as follows: "they could not be satisfy ed about 
any administrator in England to begin this practice; 
because though some in this nation rejected the bap- 
tism of infants, yet they had not as they knew of re- 



88 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

vived the antient custom of immersion /" but even 
that is sufficiently definite to express a clear idea. 

In the earlier account we have the unqualified asser- 
tion of the most important document in the history 
of Particular Baptists that prior to the year 1640 
nobody at all had practiced in England the immer- 
sion of professed believers. The Anabaptists had 
not practiced it, who came over from Holland in 
the sixteenth century. The followers of Hel- 
wys and JVIurton had not practiced it. Spilsbury and 
his people, who seceded in 1633, had not practiced it. 
Nobody else had practiced it. That is not the word 
of an adversary. It expresses the understanding 
which the people themselves who introduced immer- 
sion into England had of the situation under which 
they acted. There is a possibility that they may 
have been mistaken in their claim; but after two 
hundred and fifty-five years of careful investigation 
no scholar has been found to rise up and show that 
they were in error, and until somebody shall have 
accomplished that feat their word must be allowed 
to stand. They were men of intelligence; their in- 
terests were much concerned; they must have made 
careful inquiry; they understood whereof they af- 
firmed, and their testimony applies first of all to the 
Borough of Southwark which they inhabited in com- 
pany with their immediate neighbor, Dr. Daniel 
Featley. 

The other leading item is that Mr. Blunt was sent 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 89 

to Holland in 1640 to obtain immersion; that he 
went to John Batten, well known as a teacher among 
the Collegiants, and, receiving the rite at his hands, 
returned to England. Here he was instrumental in 
reviving immersion by procuring the ordinance to 
he administered to "two companies," one of which 
had been derived from the church of Mr. Spilsbury 
•and the other from the church of Mr. Henry Jessey. 
In my opinion these facts thus clearly established 
by the two most important and valuable documents, all 
things considered, that are connected with our his- 
tory, constitute irrefragable proofs that immersion 
was introduced into England in the year 1641. 
Here is an unquestionable account of a complete 
■change. Prior to 1641 the followers of Helwys and 
Murton on the one hand and the followers of Spils - 
foury on the other were in the practice of sprinkling 
or pouring for baptism; in the year 1641 immersion 
was fetched out of Holland and a new epoch was in- 
troduced. There is no chance anywhere to evade 
that plain conclusion. If it may not stand secure, 
then the study of history is a delusion; no fact of 
history can ever be established. 



90 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



VII. 



EIGHT MONUMENTS OF THE INTRODUCTION OF IM- 
MERSION INTO ENGLAND IN THE YEAR 1641. 

THE Jessey Church Records prove that immersion 
was introduced into England in the year 1641. 
That was an important change. In all cases where 
important changes occur it is to be anticipated that 
historical monuments of some kind will be left behind 
to indicate that they took place. One of the most 
prominent monuments of this change is the Fortieth 
Article of the Confession of Faith of the Seven Con- 
gregations or Churches of Christ in London^ 16J+J+, 
prescribing immersion as follows: "That the way 
and manner of the dispensing of this ordinance i& 
dipping or plunging the body under water/ it being 
a sign must answer the things signified, which i& 
that interest the saints have in the death, burial and 
resurrection of Christ; and that as certainly as the 
body is buried under water and risen again; so cer- 
tainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the 
power of Christ in the day of the resurrection to 
reign with Christ. 7 ' 

The dipping or plunging the body under water 
as applied to believers is here for the first time pre- 
scribed by an English Confession of Faith, and the- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 91 

year 1644 agrees with the Jessey Church Records, 
which represent that immersion was first introduced 
in 1641. If immersion had previously been in use,, 
it is very hard to understand why it should not have 
been required in any of the previous Confessions. 
The reason why it was first prescribed in 1644 is to- 
be found in the fact that it was not in use in England 
until 1641. The Confession of 1644 is an enduring 
monument to the change that was made in 1641. 

The Confession above mentioned, which for the 
first time prescribes dipping, also carefully specifies 
the manner in which it shall be performed, as fol- 
lows: "The word baptizo signifies to dip or plunge 
(yet so as convenient garments be both upon the 
administrator and subject with all modesty)." Mani- 
festly this direction about clothing was added because 
it was to be apprehended that some might administer 
the ordinance without having convenient garments 
upon the administrator and subject. That circum- 
stance indicates that the rite was still so new to them 
that the manner of performing it was as yet unset- 
tled. Such precautions are not appended to Baptist 
confessions in our day, because at present the way 
and manner of dispensing the ordinance of baptism 
are so well understood that it can not be anticipated 
that either the subject or the administrator shall be 
without suitable garments. But they must have- 
been necessary on this occasion. This provision 
likewise accords with the Jessey Church Records,, 



92 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

which show that immersion was first introduced into 
England in 1641, and it is a monument of the re- 
cent change from sprinkling to immersion. 

That the name Baptist first came into use shortly 
after 1611, is another evidence of the fact in ques- 
tion. The name Anabaptist had long been re- 
sented. The brethren frequently designated them- 
selves as those who were "unjustly called Anabap- 
tists" (Crosby, vol. 2, Appendix, p. 51). But so 
long as their contention related merely to the sub- 
jects of baptism they could never shake off the 
name Anabaptists. Their act of baptism being the 
same as that employed by other Christians, namely, 
pouring and sprinkling, it was always described as 
a mere repetition of baptism — as Anabaptism. But 
when another act was introduced, namely, immersion, 
it then became possible for the brethren to obtain a 
new designation. Henceforth they were called "bap- 
tized Christians"^?' excellence, and in due time Bap- 
tists. The earliest instance in which this name occurs 
as a denominational designation, so far as my infor- 
mation goes, befell in the year 1641, three years after 
immersion had been introduced. The Anabaptists 
Groundwork for Reformation, 1644, p. 23, says: "I 
ask T [nomas] L[amb] and the rest of those Baptists, 
or Dippers, that will not be called Anabaptists 
(though they baptize some that have been twice bap- 
tized before ) what rule they have by word or exam- 
ple in Scripture, for their going men and women to- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 93: 

gether into the water and for their manner of dip- 
ping, and every circumstance and action they per- 
form concerning the same." (Dexter, True Story, 
p. 56). Baillie, in "Anabaptism the True Founda- 
tion of Independency, etc.," London, 1646, p. 30, 
says: "Many more of their women do venture to- 
preach among the Baptists than among the Brown- 
ists in England." (Barclay, p. 157.) 

Another instance in which the name occurs, be- 
longs to the year 1654., when Mr. William Brit- 
ten published a work entitled The Moderate Bap- 
tist; briefly showing the Scripture-way for that initia- 
tory sacrament of baptism, together with divers 
queries, considerations, errors and mistakes, in and 
about the work of religion. Wherein may appear that 
the Baptists of our times held not those strange opin- 
ions as many heretofore have done, etc. (Crosby, vol. 
1, p. 254.) In the same year R. Farnsworth issued an 
address: "To you that are called by the name of 
Baptists or Baptized people, etc. " (Dexter, True- 
Story, p. 97.) Cotton Mather in the Magnalia, Hart- 
ford, 1820, vol. 2, p. 459, represents what seems to 
have been the true state of the case when he says, 
"Now they declared our infant baptism to be a mere- 
nullity and they arrogate unto themselves the title of 
Baptists, as if none were baptized but themselves." 
The name Baptist was in 1644 first claimed by our 
people. They have claimed it ever since. 

Another monument is the baptismal controversy.- 



94 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

It began shortly after 1641. Hitherto the Christian 
world had moved almost together in reference to the 
act of baptism so that there had been small occasion 
for a baptismal controversy. For twelve centuries 
they had stood so unitedly in favor of immersion that 
the act of baptism was little discussed. For four 
centuries later Western Christendom had moved so 
uniformly in the direction of pouring and sprinkling 
that men seldom contended for the original usage. 
But now that a body of Christian people had risen 
up to stem the tide of innovation and sail against the 
current, there was serious business on hand. When 
Edward Barber sent forth "A Small Treatise of 
Baptisme or Dlj)pinff a new note had been struck. 
The man was here asserting against the whole of 
Western Christendom that baptism is synonymous 
with dipping; that there is no other baptism but 
dipping. He aimed to show "that the Lord Christ 
ordained Dipping" and not sprinkling or pouring. 
The claim that immersion is the only valid act of 
baptism had been a long while unknown in England. 
A. R. expressed the idea still more distinctly 
on the title page of his "Treatise of the Vanity 

of Childishe Baptism wherein is also proved 

that Baptizing is Dipping and Dipping is Baptiz- 
ing.'''' In other words he contended that immersion 
is the exclusive act of baptism. For ages before this 
time that contention had not been urged in England. 
Here began the earliest notes of that baptismal con- 



"A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 95 

troversy which is still with us. This controversy 
opening at least as early as 1642 is a monument of 
the introduction of immersion, an event, which ac- 
cording to the Jessey Church Records took place in 
1641. Prior to that date no English books have 
been instanced which were written for the special 
purpose of proving that immersion alone is baptism; 
after that date such works abound in England. No- 
body wrote in favor of immersion as the exclusive 
act of baptism prior to 1641, for the reason that no- 
body in England at that period practiced immersion 
alone for baptism: divers wrote in favor of it after 
1641, for the reason that people began to practice it 
there in 1641. The case of Leonard Busher does 
not furnish an exception since it cannot be proven 
that his work was published in England. Besides 
it is devoted to another subject, and contains only a 
brief reference to dipping. 

Another evidence of the introduction of immer- 
sion 1641 is contained in the fact that before that 
time no instances are found where churches were 
divided on this issue. They divided on other issues 
but not upon this one. After 1641 it was not un- 
usual for churches to divide about immersion. B. 
Ryves in Mercurius Rusticus, Oxford, 1646, p. 22, 
gives a description of the condition of affairs at 
Chelmsford in Essex, and informs us that: "Since 
this Magnified Reformation was set on foot this 
towne (as indeed most Corporations, as we find by 



96 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

experience are Nurceries of Faction and Rebellion) 
is so filled with Sectaries, especially Brownists and 
Anabaptists that a third part of the people refuse to 
communicate in the Church-Lyturgie, and halfe re- 
fuse to receive the blessed Sacrament, unlesse they 
may receive it in what posture they please to take 
it. They have amongst them two sorts of Anabap- 
tists ; the one they call the Old Men or Aspersi, be- 
cause they were but sprinkled : the other they call 
the New Men or the Immersi because they were 
overwhelmed in their Rebaptization." 

N. Homes in his Vindication of Baptizing Believ- 
ers' Infants, etc., 1645, p. v. says: "One congre- 
gation at first adding to their Infant Baptisme the 
adult baptisme of sprinkling : then not resting there- 
in, endeavoring to adde to that a dipping, even to 
the breaking to pieces of their congregation." (Dex- 
ter, True Story, pp. 47-8, note. | These divisions 
are indications of the fact that immersion had been 
introduced as asserted by the Jessey Church Records 
in 1641. Many of the brethren would refuse to sub- 
mit to the innovation and these drew away to them- 
selves, leaving the immersion party in control of the 
ground. Reasons are not wanting to support the 
conclusion that the separation between the simple 
Anabaptists and the Dippers was not completed un- 
til about the year 1660 (Crosby, 3, 77). In some 
cases it "broke to pieces the congregation," while 
in others it resulted in the formation of "Open Bap- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 97 

tist" churches, some of which still remain in Eng- 
land as a monument of the introduction of immersion. 

Prior to 1641 the followers of Murton and Helwys 
were in close relations with the Mennonites, and in 
1626 a movement was set on foot looking to the 
organic union of the two parties (Evans, vol. 2, pp. 
24-30). After the year 1641 those relations were 
entirely broken off, and it is claimed by the best 
Mennonite scholarship that this alienation was 
caused by the introduction of immersion. The 
Mennonites being henceforward recognized as un- 
baptized people were not disposed to continue the 
fellowship and friendship that had hitherto prevailed. 
(Scheffer, De Brownisten, p. 156). That separation 
was one of the striking monuments of the rejection 
of pouring and sprinkling, which had always been 
practiced by Mennonites, and of the adoption of 
immersion. 

Another monument of the fact that immersion 
was introduced into England in 1641 is found in the 
alarm that was occasioned shortly afterwards re- 
specting the effect of the ordinance upon the health 
of the people who should submit to it. No records 
have been produced of the existence of any such 
feeling prior to the year 1641, for the reason that no 
such custom as immersion then existed in England; 
but after 1641 the apprehension was very sincere, even 
though it was not very just. It was experienced by 
such men as Kichard Baxter and Walter Cradock, 

7 



98 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

and was also considerably prevalent among the com- 
mon people, who sometimes supposed that the Bap- 
tists were a cruel and murderous sect merely because 
they used immersion. In the year 1646 Mr. Samuel 
Oates was tried for his life at Chelmsford because 
Anne Martin died within a few weeks after she had 
been baptized by him. (Crosby, vol. 1, pp. 236-8.) 
This was the result of a wild and senseless panic, 
but it was a panic that occurred because the ordi- 
nance was so very new and as yet the public was but 
little accustomed to it. A panic of that kind never 
occurred at any other period in English history. 
After a few years it would have been found impos- 
sible to produce an excitement of this sort, since the 
people had then become better acquainted with the 
practice of dipping and the effects of dipping upon 
the health of those baptized. 

An eighth monument of the change from sprin- 
kling and pouring to immersion, is found in the 
word "rhantise" which appears then to have first 
come into use in English. When it first began to 
be denied that sprinkling was baptizing, it became 
necessary to declare in learned speech just what it 
might be. The brethren were put upon distinctions; 
they were compelled to find a name for sprinkling, 
and since "baptize" was transferred from the Greek 
language it was natural to look in that direction. 
Accordingly the word "rhantize" was chosen. The 
beginning of this movement in philology appears to 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 99 

have been made by A. K[itor]in his "Treatise of the 
"Vanity of Childish-Baptisme, " London, 1642, p. 11, 
where he makes use of the original Greek word as 
follows: "For a learned and approved Author has 
noted the Greeke wants not words to express any 
other act as well as dipping: If the institution could 
beare it, upon Matt. 3,11, for the Greek to sprinkle 
is pavziZcj. Much humane authority, both ancient 
and moderne, might be produced herein, all which 
would be needlesse, seeing the Scripture itself is so 
cleere in the point," etc. 

Rev. Christopher Blackwood in his "Storming of 
Antichrist in his strongest Garrisons, of compulsion 
of conscience and Infants Baptisme, " London, 1614, 
appears to have improved upon the suggestion of 
A. R. by transferring the Greek word to English. 
Thereupon an anonymous author speedily issues a 
work entitled "Mock Majesty, or the Siege of Muen- 
ster, " London, 1644, and begins the preface as fol- 
lows : "To the intelligent Reader, Baptized or Ran- 
tized : Thou must excuse me for this pretty new- 
stamped word. It is pitty but it should signify 
something in English. Whether it do so or no, it 
is not a week since I first met with it, and that in a 
way of scorn and contempt of the Baptism of our 
Church (See Christopher Blackwood in his book en- 
titled the Storming of Antichrist in his two strongest 
holds, etc., very lately published)." There are other 
indications in literature that the word was then first 



100 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

minted. Thomas Blake, who favored and practiced 
the rite of pouring, says in his ''Infants Baptism freed 
from Antichristianism," London, 1645, p. 4: "I have 
seen several dipped ; I never saw nor heard of any 
sprinkled (or as some of you use to speak rcmUsed." 
(Wall, History, vol. 2, 402). The word "rhantize" 
is a monument of the change from sprinkling to 
immersion, that, like the name Baptist, abides with 
us still. 

There are yet other monuments of that great 
change ; but the eight that I have instanced above 
will suffice to show that it produced an impression. 
This impression was not confined to the age in which 
the change occurred, but marks of it still are apparent 
in our own age and every one of them is in harmony 
with the Jessey Church Records which represent that 
immersion was introduced again into England in the 
year 1641. In particular, as long as the name Bap- 
tist shall be uttered anywhere in the world it will 
point back with unerring certainty to that famous 
event in that famous "yeare of jubilee," as Edward 
Barber phrases it. The name was not in use before 
that period; it has been constantly applied as a de- 
nominational designation to our people ever since 
that date. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 101 



VIII. 

MR. PRAISEGOD BAREBONE. 

THIS excellent person was a contemporary and 
an eyewitness of the event here under discus- 
sion, and he confirms the testimony of the Jessey 
Church Records in every particular. 

Mr. Barebone was a famous and worthy man. 
Few rise to such heights of influence and usefulness. 
Born in London in 1596 he became one of the fore- 
most notables of the Puritan party. Mr. Carlyle 
says: "Praisegod, though he deals in leather, and 
has a name which can be misspelt, one discerns to be 
the son of Pious parents : to be himself a man of 
piety, of understanding and weight — and even of 
considerable private capital, my witty flunky friends." 
(Cromwell's Letters and Speeches, New York, 1847, 
p. 196). He had a spacious private dwelling in 
Fleet Street where he preached the gospel to a 
church that was much devoted to the special friend 
of Cromwell, and in many other ways he made a 
distinguished figure in the England of his genera- 
tion. 

Some have claimed that he was a Baptist preach- 
er ; but Ivimey is not certain on this point (History, 
vol. 1, p. 157). The Baptist Encyclopaedia on the 



102 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

contrary has no doubt of the correctness of it. In 
its biography of him as set forth under his name it 
styles him a "Baptist minister," "our worthy bro- 
ther" who was "unquestionably a godly and a great 
man." High praise from competent Baptist author- 
ity. 

This great man gave his name to one of the Par- 
liaments of England — that convened by Oliver Crom- 
well on the fourth of July, 1653. Whether that 
was done as a tribute to his authority in the Parlia- 
ment, as the Baptist Encyclopaedia has intimated, or 
merely as an expression of the popular wit, it was a 
more important achievement than many men have 
been able to perform. To be called by Cromwell to 
sit in the Parliament, was a worthy distinction ; to 
get the Parliament called in his honor was a much 
higher distinction. 

It is true that the Baptist Encyclopaedia has blun- 
dered in claiming Mr. Barebone as a Baptist minis- 
ter, yet it was not a very great blunder. There was 
some reason for this conclusion, for he was closely 
connected with the Baptists, having been a member 
of the Jessey Church prior to the year 1640. When 
Mr. Jessey began to lean towards the Anabaptists, 
Barebone resisted him, for the reason that he desired 
to stand upon the Independent foundation which 
the Church had occupied from the beginning. He 
was able to give effect to his resistance by dividing 
the ancient church and taking just half of it away 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY 103 

from Mr. Jessey in the month of May, 1640, as the 
Jessey Church Records affirm, leaving the other half 
to follow Mr. Jessey in due season into the Baptist 
fold. 

It is likely that Barebone knew personally every 
member of Jessey's Church and had canvassed them 
over and over again during the schism which he pro- 
duced in May, 1640. There can be little question 
that he knew Mr. Richard Blunt by heart. He may 
indeed have heard something of the project to send 
him into Holland that he might fetch immersion 
over seas. At any rate when that practice was in- 
troduced among them in the year 1641 — "the yeare 
of jubilee" — Mr. Barebone got upon the track of it 
almost as soon as anybody else in England. This 
marked change struck him very forcibly, since adult 
immersion was unknown in England in 1640. The 
Jessey Church Records declared with perfect truth 
and decision "none having then so practiced in Eng- 
land to professed believers," and he knew that 
every word of it was true. Therefore Barebone con- 
firmed every word of the Jessey Records. 

And he was an unexceptionable witness. He had 
much ability, combined with high station and high 
character. His information was adequate; nobody 
outside of the Jessey Church itself was likely to 
know as much as he knew regarding the transaction. 
Moreover his friendship for the Baptists was so con- 
spicuous that eminent Baptist writers, still affirm, 



104 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

though incorrectly, that he was a Baptist minister. 
Such a witness must command attention and respect 
when he testifies of the great change that took place 
just under his eyes. He sat down immediately and 
wrote the first treatise that appeared against immer- 
sion in the baptismal controversy. The full title of 
his pamphlet is: A Discourse Tending to prove the 
Baptisme in or under the Defection of Antichrist to 
be the Ordinance of Jesus Christ, as also That the 
Baptisme of Infants or Children is Warrantable and 
Agreeable to the Word of God, Where the per- 
petuity of the estate of Christ's Church in the 
world, and the Everlastingnesse of the Covenant of 
Almighty God to Abraham are set forth as Maine 
Grounds, and sundry other particular things are 
controverted and discussed. By P. B. [Leather- 
seller in Fleet Street]. London. Printed by R. 
Oulton and G. Dexter, and are to be sold by Benja- 
min Allen over against the signe of the Angell in 
Pope's Head Alley, 1642. 

In the copy that was handed me at the Library of 
the British Museum in the summer of 1880, the 
words "Leather- seller in Meet Street," which I have 
inclosed in brackets above, were written with ink 
upon the title page in the hand of Mr. Thomason, 
the bookseller who collected the King's Pamphlets. 
This shows that P. B. stands for Praisegod Bare- 
bone, who was famous everywhere in that character. 
The opinion of Thomason on this point may not be 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 105 

infallible, but no reason has ever been suggested for 
calling it in question. 

Mr. Barebone's contention is that the baptism 
which both the Independents and the Anabaptists 
had received in or under the defection of Antichrist 
— a baptism by pouring or sprinkling — was the or- 
dinance of Jesus Christ; that it was good enough 
for all uses, and that there was no kind of propriety 
in introducing this new baptism by dipping. My 
citation from the above work as contained in a man- 
uscript copy taken on the spot in July, 1880, is as 
follows: 

"But now very lately some are mightily taken 
as having found out a new defect in the Baptisme 
under the defection, which maketh such a nullitie of 
Baptisme in their conceit that it is none at all, and 
it is concerning the manner of Baptizing wherein 
they have espyed such default as it maketh an abso- 
lute nullity of all person's Baptisme but such as 
have been so Baptized according to their new dis- 
covery; and so partly as before in regard of the sub- 
ject and partly in regard of so great default in the 
manner: They not only conclude as is before sayd 
a nullity of their present Baptisme, And so but ad- 
dresse themselves to be Baptized a third time after 
the true way and manner they have found out, which 
they account a precious truth. The particular of 
their opinion and practice is to Dip, and that persons 
are to be Dipped, ail and every part to be under the 



106 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

water, for if all the whole person be not under the 
water then they hold they are not Baptized with the 
Baptisme of Christ. As for sprinkling or pouring 
water on the face it is nothing at all as they account, 
and so measuring themselves by these new thoughts 
as unbaptized they addresse themselves to take it up 
after the manner of Dipping: but truly they want 
[lack] a Dipper that hath authority from heaven, as 
had John whom they please to call a Dipper, of 
whom it is sayd that it might be manifested his Bap- 
tisme was from heaven. A man can receive noth- 
ing, that is, lawful authority or power to Baptize, 
unlesse it be given from heaven, which I desire they 
would be pleased to mind and they will easily see 
their third baptism is from the earth and not from 
heaven as John's was. And if this case be further 
considered it will appeare at the most to be but a 
defect in the manner and a coming short in the 
quantity of the Element. It is a wonderful thing 
that a nullity should thereof follow forthwith, of 
which more may be seen in the same case before. 
Againe that the substance of an Ordinance of so 
high a nature and great concernment should be 
founded in the criticknesse of a word and in the 
quantity of an element is no lesse marveilous, to say 
no more. Oh but Baptisme is a Buriall as it is 
written, We are buried with him in Baptisme, etc., 
and we are raised up also to newnesse of life. This 
Buriall and resurrection only Dipping can import 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 107 

and hold forth But inasmuch as this is a 

very new way, and the full growth of it and settling- 
is not yet known, if it be to themselves, yet not to 
me and others: I will forbeare to say further to it." 
(pp. 12, 13, 15.) 

Let it be remembered that in the year 1640 the 
Jessey Church Records declare that there was no- 
immersion of adults in England — "none having then 
so practiced in England to professed believers." 
They also affirm that in 1611 immersion was intro- 
duced from Holland. 

This work of Mr. Barebone, written in the year 
1612, agrees exactly with those declarations. The 
above extracts show conclusively that a '■'■new bap- 
tism" had been '■'■very lately'''' introduced, that it was- 
not the old rebaptism, but involved a "new dis- 
covery" which related to the "true way and manner" 
of baptizing, and that this "true way and manner" 
was ' Ho Dip, and that persons are to be Dipped, all 
and every part to be under the Water." In order to- 
avail themselves of this new baptism the parties 
were compelled to renounce two former baptisms, 
one administered when they were infants in the- 
Church of England, and the other when they became 
Anabaptists and joined Mr. Spilsbury's church dur- 
ing or after the year 1633. The reason for renounc- 
ing that second baptism is asserted to be that they 
now accounted "sprinkling or pouring water on the 
face to be nothing at all" and hence regarded them- 



108 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

selves "as wibaptized." It was on this account 
alone that they "addressed themselves to take it up 
after the manner of Dipping." 

If these citations do not demonstrate that up to a 
period immediately preceding the year 1642, the 
parties concerned were in the practice of sprinkling 
or pouring for baptism; that they then made a "new 
discovery" of the "true way and manner" of bap- 
tizing; that this "true way and manner" was by 
"dipping all and every part of the body under 
water," and that in order to obtain this "new Dip- 
ping" they had to renounce two former baptisms, 
then human speech is worthless as a vehicle of ex- 
pression; it will be impossible for anybody to set 
forth definite ideas by that means. Taken in con- 
nection with all the facts about the history of bap- 
tism in England and the declarations of the Jessey 
Church Records, this testimony of Mr. Barebone 
constitutes an irrefragable proof. No ingenuity of 
the mind of man can overthrow it. 

The above treatise of Mr. Barebone apparently met a 
speedy reply from the very man who of all others we 
should expect to enter the list against him. Richard 
Blunt, who had gone to Holland to obtain immer- 
sion took up his pen and probably before the close 
of the year 1642 issued a printed work which up to 
this moment, so far as I know, has not been recov- 
ered. It might throw a desirable light on these dis- 
cussions if it could be produced, and it is worthy of 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 109 

diligent search in manj libraries. Its exact title can 
not be given : all that we know of it is found in the 
following work by P. B[arebone] : A Reply to the 
Frivolous and impertinent Answer of R. B. to the 
Discourse of P. jB., in which Discourse is shewed 
that the Baptisme in the Defection of Antichrist is- 
the ordinance of God, notwithstanding the corrup- 
tions that attend the same, and that the Baptisme of 
Infants is lawful, both of which are vindicated from 
the exceptions of R. B., and further cleared by the 
same author [i. e., P. B.]. There is also a reply in 
way of Answer to some exceptions of E[dward] 
B[arber] against the same. London, 1643. (Dex- 
ter, True Story, p. 88.) 

Dr. Dexter supplies a citation from this book, as- 
follows, pp. 19, 30, 31, 61: "JVew tilings are very 
pleasant, and many are much taken with them, as is 
R. B. with dipping; about which he taketh great 

paines, produceth many scriptures, etc What 

should be the cause R. B. hath laboured so much in 
this matter of dipping, and taken notice of every 
particular, I leave every man free to judge: for my 
part, I take it to be, as I said before: It is new and 
the man is mightily taken with it. [He goes on to- 
charge R. B. with] denying the Baptisme of all 
the Reformed Churches and separed [separated] 
Churches, and also of all other Christians, Either 
Reformed or yet in defection, only those two or three- 
[Churches] excepted that have within these two or- 



110 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

three yeeres or some such time bin totally dipped for 
Baptisme by persons at the beginning unbaptized 
themselves." [Further in referring to Barber's book 
he cites his taunt: "the Church P. B. is a member 
of was unheard of till within these 200 yeeres," and 
replied] : "Well; 200 yeeres is some antiquitie, more 
than two or three yeeres, such as is the descent of the 
.totall dippers in this kingdoms." (True Story, p. 49.) 

This passage confirms and clinches what Mr. Bare- 
bone had reported in the previous book. Dipping 
was never taken for granted by him. It was always 
for him a "new thing." The "descent of the totall 
dippers in this kingdome" of England according to 
his most accurate information was no longer than 
"two or three yeeres, or some such short time." 

All this harmonizes to a nicety with the Jessey 
Church Records. That official testimony is confirm- 
ed by an authority in this instance that no man can 
gainsay ; distinguished alike for ability, position, 
opportunities, information and friendly temper to- 
wards the Baptists ; so friendly that the Baptist 
Encyclopaedia claims him for a Baptist minister, 
while it justly honors him as "unquestionably a 
.godly and a great man." 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. Ill 



IX. 

SEVEN BAPTIST WITNESSES. 

<( TV TONE having then so practiced in England 
IN to professed believers." All the Baptist 
witnesses brought forward here agree with the Jes- 
sey Church Records that there was a time in Eng- 
land when the immersion of adult believers had be- 
come extinct, while one or two of them will be 
found to indicate the date when it was introduced 
again. 

Edward Barber was a well-known Baptist minis- 
ter, who in 1641 published a work with the follow- 
ing title: A Small Treatise of Baptisme or Dipping, 
Wherein is Cleerly showed that the Lord Christ Or- 
dained Dipping for those only that professe Repent- 
ance and Faith. 1. Proved by Scriptures. 2. By 
Arguments. 3. A Parallel Betwixt Circumcision 
and Dipping. 1. An Answere to some Objections 
by P. B. Psal. 119, 130. By Edward Barber. 
Printed in the Yeere 1641. 

In this treatise Mr. Barber handles two several 
propositions, first that the Lord Christ ordained dip- 
ping and not sprinkling or pouring as the act of 
baptism, and second that he ordained dipping for 
those only that profess faith in Christ and not for 



112 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

immature infants. Both bis positions are duly argued 
and the discussion is worthy of respect, notwith- 
standing the fact that the first question had not pre- 
viously been discussed by any author in England, at 
least for a very long period of time. The author de- 
votes more space to the discussion of infant baptism, 
apparently for the reason that to his mind the proofs 
in favor of immersion were so clear that they did 
not require to be specially elaborated. 

I have a manuscript copy of the material portions 
of this pamphlet, all that I use in this discussion, 
but unfortunately it omits to set down the paging 
of the original, and therefore I shall be compelled 
to indicate by other means the places whence my 
citations are drawn. The first of these falls at the 
beginning of The Preface. The words are as follows: 
"Beloved Reader, it may seem strange that in these 
times when such abundance of Knowledge of the 
Gospell is professed in the World, that there should 
notwithstanding be generally such ignorance, espe- 
cially in and amongst those that professe themselves 
Ministers thereof, of that glorious principle True 
Baptisme or Dipjmig, Ephe. 4, 5, Instituted by the 
Lord Jesus Christ, which all that look for life and 
salvation by him ought to be partakers of; it being 
that onely which was received by the Apostles and 
Primitive Churches, and for a long time unviolably 
kept and practiced by the Ministerie of the Gospel 
in the planting of the first Churches, and that the 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 113 

Lord should raise up mee a poore Tradesman to de- 
vulge this glorious Truth, to the World's Censur- 
ing." 

The author here represents that though abundance 
of knowledge of the gospel was claimed, yet in the 
year 1641 there was general ignorance of true bap- 
tism or dipping, not only among the laity, but espe- 
cially among the ministry of the gospel. If there 
was such general ignorance of the dipping of be- 
lievers, even among the clergy, the practice could 
not have been employed in England at that time. 
Manifestly it had become extinct before that time. 
That this is his meaning is rendered apparent by the 
last section of the pamphlet, which is devoted to "An 
Answere to some Objections by P. B." It has been 
shown that Barebone had charged that: "truly they 
want [lack] a Dipper that hath authority from heaven 
as had John, whom they please to call a Dipper. " His 
objection was that if baptism was extinct, as it was 
asserted to be, nobody had authority to restore it 
except one who had received a divine commission 
for that purpose. To that contention Mr. Barber 
replied in his "Answere to Some Objections by P. 
B." as follows: "2. We grant the Ordinance being 
lost, none but a Christ, a Moses, Elias or a Prophet 
from heaven can raise it; but beleevers having 
Christ, the Word and Spirit have this," etc. 

Here it is conceded by Mr. Barber that the ordi- 
nance was lost, but that believers having Christ, the 



114 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Word and Spirit had received a divine commission to 
introduce it again just as truly as Moses or John the 
Baptist had received commissions from the Lord. 

A little farther on he states the matter with yet 
more distinctness: "But put the case the Babilon- 
ians had destroyed the Lord's Vessels and instead 
had made them of Brase, Copper, Tin or Lead, 
whereas they were to be of pure Gold and Silver ; 
had they beene then the Lord's Vessels, or would 
his people have used them in his service and wor- 
ship, or brought them backe, Ezra 1. 11, or would 
the Lord have accepted them for his own Vessels? 
And thus it stands in truth for the Dipping of Christ, 
destroyed and raced out loth for matter and forme, 
as hath been formerly shewed, the matter being a 
believer desiring it, the true forme dipping them 
into Jesus Christ,' 1 etc. 

Whatever else may be said of Edward Barber, it 
can never be claimed that in this Small Treatise he 
takes immersion for granted. That is the very 
thing that he does not do. On the contrary, he de- 
clares in terms that the world was ignorant of it, for 
the reason that it had been "destroyed and raced out 
both for matter and forme." 

Mr. Barber also indicates the exact time when it 
was introduced again. His book bears the date of 
1641, and in it he claims the distinguished honor "to 
devulge this glorious Truth to the World's Censur- 
ing." Nobody in recent times had divulged it in 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 115 

England. His book was the first in modern ages to 
make it known to the English public. The annals 
of English literature will be searched in vain for a 
volume that precedes it in date and yet maintains 
that nothing else is true baptism but immersion. 
That view was familiar enough in apostolic days ; but 
it had long since been "destroyed and raced out" in 
England. Therefore when Mr. Barber employed the 
word "divulge" he meant precisely what he said ; it 
suited to a nicety the facts of the situation. It has 
been claimed that Mr. Barber did not know all the 
circumstances and that there might have been some 
instances of immersion upon profession of faith in 
various portions of the country that he was not aware 
of ; but nobody has anywhere brought forward one 
of these instances, and until that point is clearly 
■demonstrated it may give us no concern. 

At the close of his Preface, Mr. Barber begins his 
"Small Treatise of Dipping ; Wherein is. clearly 
shewed that the Lord Christ ordained Dipping for 
those onely that profest Faith and Repentance : 
1. Proved by Scripture from the Commission of 
Christ and practice of the Apostles and Primitive 
Churches." The author's discussion as presented 
in this the main body of his tract confirms at every 
point the position I have taken. 

His earnest care is to demonstrate at the outset 
the truth of the first proposition, namely, that the 
Lord Christ ordained dipping. He accomplished 



116 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

that design by citing the Saviour's commission as 
set forth in Matthew and Mark and by translating 
the Greek word baptize which occurs there instead 
of transferring it into English. He says: "The 
Lord Jesus Christ in that great Charter of the Holy 
Gospel, Mt. 28.18.19.20, having received all power 
in Heaven and Earth, saith, Goe, and make Dis- 
ciples, all Nations, dipping them in the Name of the 
Father, and of the Sonne, and of the Holy Spirit, 
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you. And lo I am with you alway, 
even to the end of the world. 

"And Marke 16.15, he saith : Goe yee into all the 
world and preach the Gospel to every creature, he 
that shall beleeve and bee dipped shall be saved: but 
he that will not beleeve shall be damned." 

This was an excellent argument in favor of im- 
mersion as the exclusive mode of baptism. The 
correct translation of the word baptize in the great 
commission and other passages of Scripture should 
always settle the question without further discussion. 
Mr. Barber next proceeds to a summing up in which 
he sets forth both the propositions of his contention 
as follows : "Thus it is cleare that the Lord Christ 
commanded his Apostles, and servants of the Gospel, 
first of all to teach and thereby to gather Disciples : 
And afterwards to dip those that were taught and 
instructed in the mysteries of the Gospell, upon the 
manifestation of their faith : which practice ought to 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 117 

continue to the end of the world, Matth. 28. 20. 
Ephs.4. 5. Heb. 13. 8." 

Mr. Barber next presents other proofs drawn from 
the practice of the Apostles, that dipping is the 
only mode of baptism as follows: "Secondly, that 
the Apostles according to this commission of Christ 
did alwayes practise, Acts 2. 36. 37. 38. Peter lift 
up his voice and said to the Jewes, Let all the house 
of Israel know for a certainty, that God hath made 
this Jesus, whom you have crucified, both Lord and 
Christ ; now when they heard this they were pricked 
in their hearts, and said unto Peter and the rest of 
the Apostles, men and bretheren, whatt shall we doe; 
Then Peter said unto them, Kepent and be dipt 
every one of you." 

Still other passages are brought forward by Mr. 
Barber to prove that dipping exclusively is true bap- 
tism and likewise that it should be administered to 
believers alone. As the earliest effort made in the 
England of modern times to show that immersion is 
essential to Christian baptism it must be conceded 
that his argument is both direct and effective. A 
simple translation of the Greek word into the corre- 
sponding English ought to be sufficient to convince 
any mind. 

Barber himself was so much pleased with his 
achievement in this connection and so well persuad- 
ed that he had carried his point and convinced all 
opponents that in the balance of his treatise, which 



118 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

he devotes to an argument against infant baptism, he 
almost uniformly takes leave to speak of baptism as 
dipping and of infant baptism as infant dipping, 
although he is sensible of the fact that infant dip- 
ping was not then customary in the Church of Eng- 
land ; for only a few lines below the quotation about 
"the Dipping of Christ being destroyed and raced 
out," he adds, "Therefore though in words you 
denie traditions, yet for the sprinkling of Infants 
you have no better Arguments." 

More extended experience was calculated to teach 
him that his position could not be carried by storm 
in this fashion. He opened his fight very bravely: 
but it was destined to be a longer and a harder fight 
than he apprehended. Believers' baptism and dip- 
ping had both been too long extinct in England to 
be restored on the spur of the moment : on the con- 
trary it would require ages of patience and exertion 
to restore them. But the matter of special concern 
in connection with his pamphlet is that he confesses 
and declares without any qualification whatsoever 
that "the Dipping of Christ was destroyed and raced 
out loth for matter and forme, as hath beene for- 
merly shewed, the matter being a beleever desiring 
it, the forme dipping them into Jesus Christ." 
Whatever quibbles may be raised about other ques- 
tions none can be raised about this one. The or- 
dinance was extinct in England in 1641, if Barber's 
authority is worth anything at all, and if the plain- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 119 

est statements of fact are capable of being under- 
stood by the human mind. 

As was intimated above, A. K., was the second 
Baptist author who appeared in defense of immer- 
sion in the baptismal controversy of modern ages. 
To the first edition of the Dippers Dipt, Dr. Feat- 
ley has prefixed a letter "To my Reverend and much 
esteemed Friend, Mr. John Downam," in which he 
sets down the name of A. R. as A. Ritor. I have 
no further acquaintance with A. Ritor; but this in- 
formation, derived from a contemporary, is worthy 
of more attention than has been bestowed upon it 
hitherto. The work of A. R. which comes under 
notice in this place is entitled : The Second Part of 
the Yanity and Childishness of Infants Baptisme. 
London, 1642. On page 29 of this Second Part, 
Dr. Dexter has found the following quotation which 
demonstrates that A. R. did not take immersion for 
granted: "If any shall thinke it strange and unlikely 
that all the godliest Divines and best Churches 
should be thus deceived on this point of Baptisme 
for so many yeares together [i. e., as never before 
to know that true baptism is dipping and dipping 
alone true baptism]: let them consider that all Chris- 
tendome (except here and there one, or some few, 
or no considerable number) was swallowed up in 
grosse Popery for many hundred yeares before 
Luther's time, which was not until about 100 yeares 
agone." (Dexter, True Story, p. 49.) 



120 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Apparently he had reference to the general ig- 
norance both among the ministry and laity "of that 
glorious principle True Baptisme or Dipping" which 
Edward Barber had remarked upon. That ignorance 
is conceded; they were "deceived on this point of 
Baptisme" for the reason that immersion had now 
become extinct, and sprinkling had been substituted 
in the place of it. A. R. merely endeavors to ex- 
plain the process by which such an unhappy change 
had been brought about. He does not, like Edward 
Barber, specify the exact time when immersion was 
again introduced, but we know from other sources that 
this had occurred before he came forth with his 
book in the year 1642. 

Thomas Kilcop, one of the brethren who sub- 
scribed the Confession of faith in the year 1644, 
published A Short Treatise of Baptisme, Wherein 
is declared that only Christ's disciples or believers 
are to be baptized, etc., London, 1642. The ar- 
gument of Fraisegod Barebone to the effect that 
they lacked a Dipper that hath authority from heaven 
as had John the Baptist, arrested the attention of 
Mr. Kilcop and he proceeded to answer it by an ex- 
cellent argumentum ad hominem as follows: "Every 
Scripture that gives you warrant, or any of your 
judgement, to erect a Church state, gives us the same 
warrant to erect baptisme, sith the one can not be 
done without the other, for none can put on Christ 
(that is visibly by outward profession; but such as 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 121 

are baptized into Christ," etc. (Dexter, True Story, 
p. 48). 

One of our moderns would have denied out of 
hand that adult immersion had ever become extinct 
in England; but Mr. Kilcop knew more about the 
matter. He conceded that point without any ques- 
tion, and argued that even though immersion had 
become extinct the Baptists had as much right "to 
«rect baptisme" as the Independents had "to erect 
a Church state." It would be impossible for a man 
to urge an argument like this, who took immersion 
for granted; on the contrary, that was the very 
thing he did not take for granted. Mr. Kilcop is in 
«xact agreement with the Jessey Church Records in 
allowing that immersion on profession of faith had 
become extinct in England. 

Rev. Henry Denne was a Baptist minister of much 
learning and worship — our pulpit has rarely enjoyed 
a more worthy ornament. This excellent brother 
wrote an able reply to Dr. Featley and Mr. Marshall 
under the following title : Antichrist Unmasked in 
two Treatises. The First An Answer unto two Paedo- 
baptists, Dan. Featley, D.D., and Stephen Mar- 
shall, B.D. The Arguments for Children's Bap- 
tisme opened and answered. The Second, The man 
■of Sinne discovered in Doctrine: The root and 
foundation of Antichrist laid open. By Hen. Denne. 
Printed for the Edification of the Church and Infor- 
mation of the world. London, 1645. (April 1st.) 



122 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Mr. Denne's testimony is as follows: "When the 
Woman cloathed with the Sun having the Moon un- 
der her feet and a Crowne of twelve Stars upon her 
head, cryed travailing in birth ready to be delivered, 
Behold a wonder in Heaven, A great red Dragon 
having seven heads and ten homes, and seven 
crownes upon his heads; And his Tayle drew the 
third part of the stars of heaven and cast them to 
the Earth: And the Dragon stood before the woman 
which was ready to be delivered to devour her childe 
when she had brought it forth Our own ex- 
perience teacheth us in these our dayes, wherein the 
shadowes begin to vanish and the night to passe 
away, and the Sun of Righteousness to draw neare 
unto our Horizon, How Many adversaries doe now 
bestirre themselves, with policy and force, etc. 
Among the rest the Church is now travail- 
ing ready to be delivered and to bring forth the 
Doctrine of the Baptisme of Water, raked up here- 
tofore in an imitation of Pedobaptisme: The truth 
of the Ordinance and Institution of the Lord Jesus, 
lying covered with Custome and Practice and a pre- 
tended Face of Antiquity" pp. 1, 2. 

This statement made in April 1645 ' 'that the Church 
was travailing ready to bring forth the doctrine of the 
Baptisme of Water " agrees admirably with the dec- 
laration of the Jessey Church Records that immersion 
was restored to England first in 1641. That Water 
Baptisme had been "raked up heretofore in an im- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 123 

itation of Redobaptisme" amounts to a concession 
that the baptism employed hitherto by Mr. Denne's 
associates had been an imitation of the rite that then 
prevailed among the Pedo baptists, which rite was 
pouring and sprinkling. 

Mr. John Mabbatt, also one of the parties who sub- 
scribed the Confession of Faith in 1644, undertook 
to reply to the pamphlet of Mr. I. Knutton, entitled: 
Seven Questions about the Controversie betweene 
the Church of England and the Separatists and Ana- 
baptists, etc., London, 1644. (Dexter, True Story, 
p. 89.) In that place (p. 23) Mr. Knutton had said 
"this opinion [of rebaptizing by dipping] being but 
new and upstart, there is good reason they should 
disclaime it and be humbled for it." Dexter, True- 
Story, p. 50.) No finer opportunity was ever pre- 
sented to deny a charge with indignation if it had 
been untrue. Mr. Mabbatt wrote "A Brief e or Gen- 
erall Reply unto Mr. Knutton's Answers unto the 
YIL Questions," etc., London, 1645 (Dexter, True 
Story, p. 90), in which, on p. 22, he not only fails 
to deny, but actually concedes the correctness of the 
allegation, and defends himself by saying: "The 
Apostles were in their time charged for 'new and 
upstart' Doctrine by some; should they by good rea- 
son therefore disclayme it, and be humbled for it, 
and so have denyed Christ's doctrine and Truth, " 
etc. (Dexter, True Story, p. 50.) Mr. Mabbatt is 
here in agreement with the Jessey Church Records 



124 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

to the effect that none had practiced immersion be- 
fore 1641. It would have been impossible for him 
to offer this reply if he had known that believers' 
immersion had never become extinct in England. 
He concedes that point without discussion. 

When the great change from pouring and sprin- 
kling to immersion was about to be introduced three 
parties were formed in England. Crosby says one 
of these believed "that the first administrator should 
baptize himself and then proceed to the baptizing of 
others. Others were for sending to those foreign 
Protestants that had used immersion for some time, 
that so they might receive it from them. And others 
again thought it not necessary to baptism that the 
administrator be himself baptized at least in an ex- 
traordinary case; but that whoever saw such a refor- 
mation necessary, might from the authority of Scrip- 
ture lawfully begin it." (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 97.) 
This latter party is claimed to have comprised the 
greatest number and the more judicious of the peo- 
ple concerned. (Crosby, vol. 1, p. 103.) 

That sort of party alignment would be inexplicable 
except upon the ground that immersion, which had 
been in disuse in England was brought forward again 
about 1641. It consitutes one of the numerous 
monuments of the change from pouring to dipping. 
Mr. John Spilsbury stood at the head of this third 
and largest party. His judgment as set forth in the 
title of one of his books (Dexter, True Story, p. 95) 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 125* 

was that "the Covenant, not Baptism, forms the' 
Church," namely, that persons who have entered 
into a church covenant acquire ipso facto a right to 
perform and enjoy every ordinance; or that when 
the ordinances are lacking they may always be re- 
stored by the mere process of setting up a church 
covenant, since "God's ordinance is the saint's privi- 
lege." 

Mr. Praisegod Barebone delivered an assault 
against that position in a pamphlet styled A De- 
fense of the Lawfulnesse of Baptizing Infants, in 
answer to Something by John Spilsberie against the 
same. By P. B. London, 1644 (Gould, Introduc- 
tion, p. cxviii). In that place he says of Mr. Spils- 
bury: "He holds that a church maybe Christ's with- 
out Baptism, as in his Book may be seen," and de- 
sires him to prove "that ever any unbaptized person 
after Baptisme was afoot in the world baptized or 

was authorized for to do it And lastly whether 

his practice of raising and beginning the Church of 
unbaptized persons, do agree with the primitive 
practice of our Lord and his Apostles that began the 
church of baptized matter as before." (Gould, pp. 
cxviii-cxix.) 

If immersion had always been in vogue in Eng- 
land Spilsbury could have resented these charges; but 
he takes no such position. He tacitly concedes the 
point that he himself, who was now one of the foremost 
leaders of English Baptists, was unbaptized and 



126 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

makes an argument to prove "that baptizednesse is 
not essential to an Administrator." (Gould, p. cxix.) 
That position would have been out of the question 
for a man who was all the while taking immersion for 
granted. On the contrary he knew that immersion 
was only recently adopted in England ; and that he 
himself had never received it, though he was daily 
immersing other people. 

Mr. John Tombes, the most learned and able 
Baptist scholar of that generation, was one of the 
leading defenders of the position assumed by Spils- 
bury and his followers, to the effect that it was not 
necessary to fetch immersion from Holland but that 
"whoever saw such a reformation necessary, might 
from the authority of Scripture lawfully begin it." 
He says in An Addition to the Apology for two 
Treatises, 1652, p. 10 : "If no continuance of adult 
baptism can be proved, and baptism by such persons 
is wanting, yet I conceive what many Protestant 
writers do yield when they are pressed by the Papists 
to show the calling of the first reformers ; that after 
an universal corruption, the necessity of the thing 
doth justify the persons that reform, though wanting 
an ordinary regular calling ; will justify in such a 
case both the lawfulness of the minister's baptizing 
that hath not been rightly baptized himself, and the 
sufficiency of that baptism to the person so bap- 
tized." (Crosby, vol. 1, pp. 104-5). Mr. Tombes 
does not take immersion for granted. He concedes 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 127 

an universal corruption such as existed before 1641, 
when adult immersion was not yet restored in Eng- 
land, and is in agreement with the facts as set forth 
on that point by the Jessey Church Records. 

The above citations constitute a sevenfold cord of 
Baptist testimony to the fact that the immersion of 
believers had become extinct in England before the 
year 1640, and that it was introduced again in the 
year 1641. It is not the testimony of enemies but 
the witness of friends who were on the spot, and 
doing what they could to promote the Baptist inter- 
est. Some of them had great learning, and all had 
exact information. If we cannot trust them about a 
matter of contemporary fact it is useless to prosecute 
historical investigations of any sort. We may as 
well close the books, and proceed to evolve our his- 
torical conclusions entirely from our own concious- 
ness without any reference to the events that have 
taken place in the world. 



128 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



SOME OUTSIDE WITNESSES. 

TO MY thinking the argument is now complete 
and conclusive without the addition of another 
word. But there are certain witnesses standing out- 
side of Baptist circles who are entitled to be heard. 
It is conceded that they have their prejudices and 
limitations; but they were eyewitnesses, men of 
ability and learning, and very capable of confirming 
truth that has been abundantly established by other 
testimony. One of these is Dr. Daniel Featley, 
whose testimony has already been sufficiently dis- 
cussed in a previous chapter to which the reader is 
respectfully referred. His book entitled The Dip- 
pers Dipt clearly shows that adult immersion was a 
new practice in England when it was published in 
1GU. 

Another author is Robert Baillie, the full title of 
whose work is as follows: Anabaptism the True 
Fountaine of Independency, Brownisme, Antinomy 
Familisme. And most of the other Errors which 
for the time doe trouble the Church of England Un- 
sealed. Also the Questions of Pedobaptisme or 
Dipping Handled from Scripture. In a Second Fart 
of The Dissuasive from the Errors of the Time. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 129 

By Kobert Baillie, Minister at Glasgow. London, 
January 4, 1646. On page 163 of the above work 
Mr. Baillie says : "The pressing of dipping and the 
exploding of sprinkling is but an yesterday conceit of 
the English Anabaptists. Among the new inven- 
tions of the late Anabaptists there is none which 
with greater animosity they set on foot then the ne- 
cessity of dipping over head and ears ; then the nul- 
lity of affusion and sprinkling in the administration 
of baptisme. Among the old Anabaptists, or those 
over sea, to this day so far as I can learn by their 
writings, or any relation that yet has come to my 
Ears, the question of dipping and sprinkling never 
came upon the Table. As I take it they dip none, 
but all whom they baptize they sprinkle in the same 
Manner as is our custome. The question about the 
necessity of dipping seems to be taken up onely the 
other year by the Anabaptists of England, as a point 
which alone as they conceive is able to carry their 
desire of exterminating infant baptisme: for they 
know that parents upon no consideration will be con- 
tent to hazard the life of their tender infants by 
plunging them over head and ears into a cold river. 
Let us therefore consider if this sparkle of new light 
have any derivation from the lamp of the Sanctuary, 
or the Sun of righteousnesse; if it be according to 
Scripturall truth or any good reason." 

Baillie in the above passage expressly declares 
that dipping was u a new invention of the late Ana- 



130 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



"an yesterday conceit of the English 
?, " "taken up onely the other year" 
"a sparkle of new light. ." He does not indicate 
the precise year in which it was introduced, but 
these expressions agree to a nicety with the po- 
sition that this event took place only about five years 
before he published his book. Every word of his 
testimony confirms the deliverance of the Jessey 
Church Records to the effect that prior to the year 
1640 "none had so practiced in England to pro- 
fessed believers," while in the year 1641 the change 
from pouring and sprinkling to immersion was duly 
inaugurated. 

Attention is once again cited to the fact that Prof. 
Scheffer, the latest and most eminent authority in 
this department, is very largely on the side of Baillie 
when he affirms that the ancient Anabaptists laid no 
stress upon immersion, while those over sea at the 
time when he wrote did not use dipping, but sprin- 
kled all whom they baptized. Of course, it is to be 
expected that efforts will be made to discredit the 
testimony of Baillie, but they can not avail. He 
will always stand as a clear and consistent witness 
on this point. 

The work of Ephraim Pagitt may be cited next, 
viz., Heresiography, or a description of the Here- 
ticks and Sectaries of these latter times, London, 
1645. After describing many other kinds of Ana- 
baptists, Pagitt comes at length to speak of the new- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 131 

est sort, namely, the "Plunged Anabaptists." He 
says: "Yea at this day they have a new crochet 
come into their heads, that all that have not been 
plunged nor dipt under water, are not truly bap- 
tized, and these also they rebaptize: And this their 
error ariseth from ignorance of the Greek word 
Baptize which signifieth no more then washing or 
ablution, as Hesychus, Stephanus, Scapulae, Budeus, 
great masters of the Greek tongue, make good by 
many instances and allegations out of many au- 
thors, "(p. 30). 

Certainly it is not possible to affirm of Pagitt that 
he had never heard of the change from sprinkling 
to immersion, for he represents the "Plunged Ana- 
baptists" as being a new sort of Anabaptists, and 
refers in unmistakable language to the "new crochet, 
come into their heads, that all that have not been 
plunged nor dipt under water are not truly bap- 
tized." If this language does not convey the idea 
that immersion had been only recently introduced 
when his book appeared in 1645, it would appear to 
be impossible to convey an idea of that kind by 
means of human speech. 

The last witness to be presented here is "William 
Cooke, and the title of his book is "A Learned and 
Full Answer to a Treatise intitled The Yanity of 
Childish Baptisme. Wherein the severall Argu- 
ments brought to overthrow the lawfulnesse of In- 
fants' Baptisme, together with the Answers to those 



132 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Arguments maintaining its unlawfulnesse are duly 
examined. As also The question concerning the ne- 
cessitie of dipping in Baptisme is fully discussed. 
By William Cooke, Minister of the Word of God at 
Wroxall in Warwickshire, London, 1644. In this 
work the author says: "Fourthly, will not this their 
manner of dipping be found also against the Sev- 
enth Commandment in the Decalogue? For I would 
know with these new dippers whether the parties to 
be dowsed and dipped may be baptized in a garment 
or no? If they may then happily the garment may 
keep the water from some part of the body, and 
then they are not rightly baptized; for the whole 
man, say they, must be dipped. Againe, I would 
aske what warrant they have for dipping or baptiz- 
ing garments, more than the Papists have for bap- 
tizing Bells? Therefore belike the parties must be 
naked and Multitudes present as at John's baptisme, 
and the parties men and women of ripe yeares, as 
being able to make a confession of their faith and 
repentance," etc., (pp. 21 and 22). 

There can be no kind of question that Mr. Cooke 
had heard of the recent change from sprinkling to 
immersion. Everything that he brings forward 
only serves to indicate that it was still new and un- 
settled. In the year 1644, when he wrote his book, 
questions about the clothing required in immersion, 
had to be debated and disposed of, which have never 
been mooted among our people at a later time. Mr. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 133 

Cooke not only refers to some of these, but he ex- 
pressly calls the parties "new dippers." 

In view of the foregoing body of materials, I can- 
didly consider that my proofs are sufficient. This 
opinion has been confirmed and strengthened by the 
renewed investigations which I have lately under- 
taken in order to set forth these proofs. Whatever 
else may be true in history, I believe it is beyond 
question that the practice of adult immersion was in- 
troduced anew into England in the year 1641. That 
conclusion must be recognized more and more by 
scholars who will take pains to weigh the facts pre- 
sented in the above discussion. It is sure to be- 
come one of the commonplaces of our Baptist teach- 
ing, and in the course of time men will be found to 
wonder how any could ever have opposed it. Few 
other facts of history are capable of more convinc- 
ing demonstration. Doubts have been cast upon 
the historical existence of the Emperor Napoleon I. 
Doubts may be cast upon any event that ever oc- 
curred among men; but the vast majority of people 
will disregard these doubts and accept the deliver- 
ances of history when they are once sufficiently 
proven. 



134 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 



XI. 

FOR GOOD MEASURE. 

THE merits of Dr. H. M. Dexter in promoting the 
recent progress in church history have already 
been acknowledged. As an antiquarian our country 
has produced few scholars who could surpass him. 
His industry was commendable, and wide experience 
had conferred extraordinary skill. Whoever shall 
be at pains to follow him to his sources will find that 
he is also a careful and painstaking workman. 

Dr. Dexter was engaged in the labor of investiga- 
tion at the British Museum and other libraries dur- 
ing a portion of the winter of 1880-1, and was 
enabled to find a number of authorities which no 
previous student had brought to light. Those which 
he has the sole credit of discovering will be thrown to- 
gether at this place to swell the volume of proof that 
immersion was introduced into England about the 
year 1641. 

The first of these belongs to the year 1644 and is 
entitled The New Distemper, written by the Au- 
thor of the Loyall Convert. Dr. Dexter, who 
appears to be the only person that has examined this 
pamphlet, reports that "the whole book takes its 
name as an attack upon the 'prophanations' of these 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 135 

dippers." (True Story, p. 50, with note.) Dipping 
being for the author a "new distemper" it is manifest 
that he did not take it for granted, but was perfectly 
aware of the change from pouring or sprinkling to 
immersion which took place in the year 1641. 

The quotations from I. Knutton and John Mabbatt 
found on the same page were instanced in another 
place and set down to the credit of Dr. Dexter. It 
will be remembered that Mr. Mabbatt was a Baptist 
witness. The same remark applies to R. J., the 
author of Nineteen Arguments proving Circum- 
cision no Seal of the Covenant of Grace The 

Unlawfullnesse of Infant Baptisme, etc., London, 
1645. On page 4 of that pamphlet this Baptist 
writer speaks of "the new Ordinance of Dipping," 
(True Story, p. 50), showing that he did not take 
immersion for granted, and that he was perfectly 
aware of the change that had occurred in the year 
1641. 

Dr. Dexter also brings forward the performance of 
J. Saltmarsh entitled The Smoke in the Temple. 
Wherein is a Design for Peace and Reconciliation of 
Believers of the several Opinions of these Times 
about Ordinances, to a Forbearance of each other in 
Love and Meeknesse and Humility, etc. London, 
1645. Mr. Saltmarsh here, pp. 15, 16, speaks of 

"the dipping them in the water as the new 

baptism," (True Story, p. 50), showing that he was 
entirely aware of the recent change from pouring 
and sprinkling to immersion. 



136 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

The above work received two replies from Baptist 
authors, one of which has not been mentioned by 
Dexter in this connection. It was written by Rev. 
Daniel King, "Preacher of the Word near Cov- 
entry," and bears the following title: A Way in 
Zion, sought out and found, for Beleevers to walk 
in. Or a Treatise consisting of Three Parts. In the 
first is proved, 1. That God hath had a people on 
the Earth, ever since the coming of Christ in the 
flesh, throughout the darkest times of Popery, which 
he hath owned as Saints and as his Church. 2. That 
these Saints have power to reassume and talce up as 
their right a/tiy ordinance of Christ, which they have 
been deprived of by the violence and tyranny of the 
man of Sin. Wherein is cleared up by Scripture 
and arguments grounded upon Scripture, who of 
right may administer Ordinances, and amongst the 
rest the Ordinance of Baptism with water. The II. 
Part containeth a full and large Answer to 13 Ex- 
ceptions against the practice of baptizing believers, 
wherein the former particulars are more fully cleared 
up, etc. London, 1650. (Ivimey, History 2, 577.) 

The power of the Saints "to reassume and take up 
as their right any ordinance of Christ which they 
have been deprived of by the violence and tyranny 
of the man of Sin," points very naturally to the in- 
troduction of immersion after the long season dur- 
ing which that rite had fallen into desuetude in 
England. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 137 

The other work in reply to Mr. Saltmarsh was by 
Rev. H. Knollys, the title of which, according to 
•Oosby, History, 1, 343, is as follows : The Shining 
of a flaming fire in Zion ; an Answer to Mr. Saltmarsh 
his thirteen exceptions against the grounds of the 
new haptism ia his book entitled the Smoke of the 
Temple, 1646. On page 1 of this volume Mr. 
Knollys comes to speak of the new baptism and in- 
stead of denying the allegation he merely retorts 
■that "Paul's doctrine was called 'new,' although he 
preached Jesus and the Resurrection" (True Story, 
p. 50), by which he appears to concede that immer- 
sion was new as charged by Saltmarsh, and yet 
though it had been extinct for a long while in Eng- 
land it had nevertheless been a command and prac- 
tice of the apostles in the beginning of the Christian 
era. In that sense at any rate it was not new — an 
•eminently true and proper conclusion. 

The next witness is J. Eachard in The Axe 
against Sin and Error and the Truth conquering, 
etc., London, 1645, where on page 8 he says : "the 

Anabaptistes by a new baptisme will not 

communicate with others for they think they are 
more holy than others, by strictnesse of their order," 
etc. (True Story, p. 50.) This "new baptis?ne , ' > 
could not have been believers' baptism for the sprin- 
kling of believers was among the Anabaptists already 
a very old baptism ; it could have been nothing but im- 
mersion which so many authorities combine to assert 



138 A QUESTION IN &APTIST HISTORY. 

was introduced again in 1641, and in the year 1645 
was still a new affair. Mr. Eachard was almost be- 
yond question aware of the change from sprinkling 
to dipping. 

N. Stephens supplies the next citation from his 
pamphlet entitled A Precept for the Baptisme of 
Infants out of the New Testament, etc., London, 
1650, where on p. 65 he argues : "If they (the Ana- 
baptists) say that the Commission, Matt. xxviii:19, 
was their first Administrator's rule, then he must be 
a Disciple made by ordinary preaching and teaching 
before he had authority to minister their new Bap- 
tisme." (True Story, p. 51.) Here is a distinct ref- 
erence to the change which lias been pointed out and 
emphasized as having occurred in the year 1641. 

Rev. John Goodwin is a voluminous and circum- 
stantial witness. The first work in which he treats 
this subject is Philadelphia : or XL Queries for the 
discovery of truth in this question ; Whether per- 
sons baptized after a profession of faith may hold 
communion with churches baptized in in- 
fancy? London, 1653. In this performance occur 
the following expressions: "the brethren of nev) 
Baptisme ;" "the way of new Baptisme ;" "surprised 
with a religious conceit of the necessity of nevj Bap- 
tisme ;" "the children of new Baptisme." Pp. 13, 
24, 25, 28. (True Story, p. 51.) 

The connection of history indicates pretty clearly 
that this new hajptism could have been nothing else 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY 139- 

than immersion ; but in his next volume the author 
expresses himself in terms that it is almost impos- 
sible to misapprehend. That volume is entitled 
Water Dipping no Firm Footing for Church Com- 
munion, London, 1653, from which Dr. Dexter 
has drawn such quotations as these: "not simply 
lawful, but necessary also (in point of duty) for per- 
sons baptized after the new mode of Dipping, to con- 
tinue communion with those churches of 

which they were members before the said Dipping;" 
"the new mode of Dipping ;" being actually baptized 
after the manner of brethren of new Baptism ; "the- 
main Pillar upon which the house of our new Dip- 
pers of men and dividers of Churches is built ;" "I 
heartily wish for some of them, whom I know, that 
their new Baptism doth not help to diminish their 
old grace;" and "for the Mode of the latest and 

newest Invention" "it is, as far as we are able 

to conceive by the representation of it made unto 
some of us, so contrived and so managed that the 
Baptist who dippeth according to it had need to be 
a man of stout limbs, and of a very able and active 
body: otherwise the person to be baptized, especially 
if in any degree corpulent, or unwieldy, runs a great 
hazard of meeting with Christ's latter Baptism, in- 
stead of his former;" "persons baptized after the new- 
mode of dipping." Pp. 1, 5, 11, 26, 39, 89. (Trua 
Story, p. 51.) 

It would be a difficult task to explain away several 



140 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

of these statements and represent them as meaning 
something else than what plainly appears on the 
face of them. They declare in unmistakable lan- 
guage that in the year 1653 dipping was still re- 
garded as a new mode of administering baptism, 
and human ingenuity will be as much taxed to find 
out some other meaning, as in the case of the ex- 
tracts from Mr. Praisegod Barebone. These as well 
as those, however, will continue to convey the mean- 
ing which is obvious on the face of them. 

Mr. Goodwin refers to the subject once more in 
"Cata- Baptism or New Baptism waxing old, an 
Answer to W. A.," etc., London, 1655, where he 
speaks of "your new baptism;" "after the new mode 
of dipping;" "Mr. W. A. himself in his' Answer' 
maketh it matter of exception and complaint, that I 
sometimes stile his way of Rebaptizing New Bap- 
tism. And yet heretofore in discussing with a grave 
Minister of Mr. A.'s judgement in the point of Re- 
baptizing, and the most ancient that I know walking 
in that way, finding him not so well satisfied that 
his way should be stiled Anabaptism, I desired to 
know of him what other term would please him? 
His answer was '■New Baptism /'" Pp. vi, xxx, 
xxxii. (True Story, p. 51.) 

The thing that was unusual about this baptism 
was the "new mode oy dipping '. " That is so mani- 
fest as to require no further explanation. Goodwin 
•can by no possibility be claimed as teaching any- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 141 

thing else than the plain facts that a change had 
occurred but recently in the mode of baptism, and 
that the new mode was by dipping. Nowhere does 
he take immersion for granted; he is quite as defi- 
nite as Mr. Praisegod Barebone in his assertion that 
dipping was the new mode. 

J. Parnell is another witness, who in The 
Watcher; or the Stone cut out of the Mountain, 
etc., London, 1655, p. 16, testifies: "now within 

these late yeares . . they (the Anabaptists) say 

they must be dipped in the water, and that 

they call baptizing." (True Story, p. 51.) 

It would be a marvelous feat to represent that 
Parnell in this work, published fourteen years after 
the introduction of immersion, had never heard of 
the change from pouring and sprinkling. Only 
"within these late yeares" had that change occurred, 
and it was perfectly fresh in the memory of all who 
lived in those times and had ever been conversant 
with the facts in question. 

The next man is J. Watts, whose work is enti- 
tled: A Scribe, Pharisee, Hypocrite and his Let- 
ter answered, Separates churched, Dippers Sprin- 
kled, or a Vindication of the Church and universities 
of England, etc whereunto is added A nar- 
ration of a publick dipping, June 26, 1656, in a 
pond, etc. London, 1657. On page iii of the 
preface he says: "Dipping was, and is, as I have 
said, a New business, and a very Novelty.'''' (True- 
Story, p. 51.) 



142 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

By the year 1690 a new generation had appeared 
on the scene; most of the eye witnesses of the events 
of 1641 had now passed away. Mr. Thomas Wall 
then came forward with a work entitled Baptism 
Anatomized: being Propounded in five Queries, 
viz. : (1) What Water Baptism is X (2) What is the 
end for which it is instituted ? (3) What giveth 
right to it? (4) Who are the true administrators of 
it ? (5) Whether it be lawful for a man to baptize 
himself X London, 1690. As a child of the second 
generation, Wall fell into certain grotesque blunders, 
and "mentions a rumor which he had heard some 
years before in London that Spilsburv visited Hol- 
land to be baptized of Smyth." This ignorant as- 
sertion was very distasteful to the Baptists of that 
period who knew that Mr. Spilsburv did not care 
enough for succession in immersion to turn on his 
heel to obtain it, to say nothing of making a jour- 
ney to Holland; that Smyth was not an immersion- 
ist and hence could not have bestowed what he did 
not possess ; and that he died in August, 1612, 
which was at least twenty-three years before Spils- 
burv comes upon the scene. 

Accordingly Mr. Hercules Collins, one of the 
foremost Baptist pastors of the day, wrote a work 
entitled Believers-Baptism from Heaven, and of 
Divine institution; Infants-Baptism from earth and 
human invention. Proved from the Commission of 
Christ, etc., with a Brief yet sufficient Answer to 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 143 

T. Wall's book called "Baptism Anatomized," Lon- 
dan, 1690. On page 115 of this volume Mr. Collins 
says: "Could not the Ordinance of Christ which was 

lost in the apostasy be revived unless in such 

a filthy way as you falsly assert, viz:, that the Eng- 
lish Baptists received their Baptism from Mr. John 
Smyth ? It is absolutely untrue, it being well known 
by some yet alive how false this assertion is." (True 
Story, p. 44, note.) 

This Baptist minister here concedes that the ordi- 
nance of Christ had been "lost in the apostasy" and 
that it had been "revived." His position is in sub- 
stance the same as that of Edward Barber, who in 
1641 declared that the ordinance had been "de- 
stroyed and raced out both for matter and forme" 
and that he had been raised up to "devulge" it "to 
the world's Censuring." Mr. Collins stood at the 
turn of the seventeenth century, having passed away 
in the year 1702, sixty-one years after the introduc- 
tion of immersion among his people, and yet the 
facts were still well known to him and he without 
embarrassment conceded the loss of immersion and 
its revival in England. 

Throughout this discussion it must have become 
apparent to all how the testimony of Baptist authors 
who were eyewitnesses of the events coincides with 
that of authors of other Denominations regarding 
the point in question. They have no hesitation in 
confessing the facts of the case ; they make no efforts 



144 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

to conceal or misrepresent them. It would be an in- 
teresting item in the further progress of this discus- 
sion if a competent scholar should find out the ear- 
liest date when Baptist writers began to be dubious 
of this notable transaction, and should bring forward 
the details of the process by which it gradually be- 
came customary to ignore, and at last to deny the 
great event that occurred among our people in the 
"yeare of jubilee." 

I believe that I may now safely leave my cause in 
the hands of candid readers. Every fact is in har- 
mony with the position that believers' immersion, 
after it had been sometime disused, was introduced 
into England again in 1641. Immersion had not been 
practiced for a lengthy season in the Church of Eng- 
land; it was unknown among the Anabaptists of Eng- 
land, who had all come over from Holland in the six- 
teenth century ; it was not practiced by the Men- 
nonites or by the followers of John Smyth, Thomas 
Helwys and John Murton ; it was introduced, ac- 
cording to the Jessey Church Records, in 1641 by 
two companies, one of which belonged to the Jessey 
Church and the other to the Church of Mr. Spils- 
bury ; the monuments of the change from sprinkling 
and pouring to immersion are very numerous, and 
some of them (as for instance the name Baptist) are 
very well known ; it was testified to almost imme- 
diately by Mr. Praisegod Barebone, a highly compe- 
tent witness, who stood so close to the Baptists that 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 145 

he is claimed as a Baptist minister by so good an 
authority as the Baptist Encyclopaedia ; the fact is 
likewise affirmed by the Baptist Edward Barber, 
who glories that it was given to him "to devulge 
this glorious truth" to a world that lay in ignorance, 
and divers other Baptist writers have just as little 
hesitation in conceding the point ; it is also defi- 
nitely asserted by some very prominent and worthy 
men of other religious Denominations who were con- 
versant with the circumstances and possibly as capable 
of telling the truth about them as were their Baptist 
fellow christians. 

What more needs to be said? The testimony of 
Baptists and Fedobaptists alike conspires to this one 
end, and it is consistent in every particular. There 
is a great cloud of witnesses, and yet not a dis- 
cordant note has been uttered. Among contempo- 
rary writers not one has been found who could re- 
port an indubitable instance of the immersion of a 
believer prior to the year 1641 among the Anabap- 
tists of England. These points comprise a cumula- 
tive argument which impresses my own mind with 
much force, and in my opinion entitle me to declare 
that the proofs to show that immersion of believers 
was introduced into England in 1641 are irrefrag- 
able proofs. 

The men who performed this great service deserve 
to be held in everlasting remembrance. They res- 
cued from destruction, at least in the English speak- 



146 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

ing world, one of the most significant and solemn or- 
dinances of the apostolic age. They preserved to suc- 
ceeding ages a knowledge of the baptism of Jesus 
Christ. Their courage and faithfulness should receive 
unstinted acknowledgment. We cannot be grateful 
enough for the patience and strength with which 
they stood in their lot and served their generation 
by the will of God. Let us endeavor to imitate their 
virtues and follow them as they followed Christ. 
The names of John Spilsbury, Edward Barber and 
Richard Blunt should be inscribed upon our tablets, 
and everywhere crowned with distinction. They 
were faithful to apostolic truth. They resisted the 
tide of innovation. They restored an ancient land- 
mark. Surely these noble men have been neglected 
too long. They merit more generous treatment at 
the hands of the great and widely extended Denom- 
ination of Christian people who for so long a period 
have enjoyed the benefits of their labors. They 
dared to stand against a nation that had fallen away 
from the truth of God in this particular. They saw 
the truth and had the courage to proclaim it in the 
face of a gainsaying generation. They have set an 
example of faithfulness to God's Word that has since 
been imitated by multitudes of men and women, 
some of whom have gladly gone to prison because 
they held Baptist principles to be Bible teaching. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 147 



APPENDIX. 

BAPTISM OF ROGER WILLIAMS. 

MOST men, even the greatest, will be children 
of the age and country in which they are 
born and reared. The Reformers, Luther, Zwingli 
and Calvin, though their names stand among the 
foremost in the annals of Protestantism, were no- ex- 
ceptions to this rule. It has been shown, for exam- 
ple, that each of them accepted the act of baptism 
that prevailed in his own time and country. Luther's 
preferences, it is conceded, turned in favor of im- 
mersion, but he yielded to circumstances that he was 
powerless to control. 

Roger Williams was likewise a very important 
personage; but he was not great enough to stand 
above the common lot of humanity. Like Calvin, 
Zwingli and Luther, he was a child of the age and 
country in which he lived ; and his age was a hun- 
dred years later than the age of the Protestant Re- 
formers. Sprinkling and pouring for baptism, which 
already in the generation of the Reformers were too 
well established to be overthrown, had now become 
still more firmly fixed in the customs and preferences 
of Western Christendom. 

Moreover the religious people with whom Mr. 



148 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Williams in the earlier portion of his life was most 
intimately connected have not distinguished them- 
selves by any special inclinations towards the rite of 
immersion. It has been a peculiarity of the Re- 
formed or Presbyterian Church ever since the time 
of Calvin to exhibit comparatively little concern 
whether immersion should be retained or not. The 
divines at Westminster in the year 1644, five years 
after Mr. Williams had severed his connection with 
the men of that school, refused to permit immersion 
to stand in the Directory for Public Worship by the 
side of sprinkling even as an alternate form of ad- 
ministering the ordinance. The question before the 
body was "Whether sprinkling being granted, dip- 
ping should be tolerated with it," (Whole works of 
John Lightfoot, D.D., London, 1824, vol. xiii, p. 
299), and this question was decided in the negative, 
an act which amounted to the abolition of immersion 
for baptism as far as that particular communion was 
concerned. 

There is no conclusive evidence to show that the 
opinions of Mr. Williams on this point were dif- 
ferent from those of the men with whom he had 
hitherto been in sympathy. Attention has been 
called to the case of Rev. Charles Chauncey, who 
arrived at Plymouth in May, 1638, bringing with 
him sentiments that were quite extraordinary among 
persons of the Puritan school. Gov. Winthrop 
says: "Our neighbors of Plimouth had procured 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 149 

from hence (England) this year, one Mr. Chauncey, 
a great scholar and a godly man, intending to call 
him to the office of a teacher; but before the fit time 
came he discovered his judgment about baptism, 
that the children ought to be dipped and not sprin- 
kled, and he being an active man and very vehe- 
ment, there arose much trouble about it. The mag- 
istrates and other elders there, and the most of the 
people, withstood the receiving of that practice. 
(Winthrop, History of New England from 1630 to 
1649. Boston, 1825, vol. 1, p. 330.) 

But nobody has shown that Mr. Williams regard- 
ed the view of Chauncey with any sort of favor at 
the time when it was advanced. For aught we 
know to the contrary he may have felt a prejudice 
both against the man and his contention. The 
record also declares that Chauncey 's judgment was 
"that the children ought to be dipped and not sprin- 
kled." The immersion of adults was practically a 
lost art in England and America at this time, and it 
is conceivable that Mr. Chauncey did not contem- 
plate the immersion of adults. Possibly it would 
have been difficult to find a single white person of 
adult age in' New England who had not received 
baptism in infancy. If the record can be depended 
upon, his contention related to the dipping of in- 
fants exclusively, and not to the dipping of adults. 
The baptism of adults for which Mr. Williams be- 
gan to contend in the spring of 1639 was so widely 



150 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

different from the baptism of infants, for which 
Chauncey was striving, that the act of immersion in 
the one case need not to have suggested the act of 
immersion in the other. 

Moreover the Anabaptists with whom Mr. Williams 
was uniting his fortunes in the year 1639 had not 
yet begun the practice of immersion in England. 
They were still spoken of everywhere, both in Eng- 
land and America, as Anabaptists, and nowhere at 
all as Baptists. Is there any a jiriori reason for 
supposing that he was in advance of them in this re- 
gard? It has been suggested that he was a person 
of unusual independence of mind, but has any proof 
ever been given to show that his independence was 
employed in this particular direction? 

The earliest contemporary record of the baptism 
of Williams is furnished by Winthrop under date of 
March 16, 1639. He says: "At Providence things 
grew still worse ; for a sister of Mrs. Hutchinson, 
the wife of one Scott, being infected with Anabap- 
tistry, and going last year to live at Providence, 
Mr. Williams was taken (or rather emboldened) by 
her to make open profession thereof, and accord- 
ingly was rebaptized by one Holyman, a poor man 
late of Salem. Then Mr. Williams rebaptized him 
and some ten more." (Winthrop, vol. 1, p. 293.) 
Another contemporary account was given to Dor- 
chester Church by Rev. Hugh Peters, pastor of 
Salem Church, under date of July 1, 1639, in which 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 151 

he acquaints them with the fact that their "great 
censure was past upon Roger Williams and his wife, 
Thomas Olney and his wife, John Throgmorton and 
his wife, Stukely Westcot and his wife, Mary Holli- 
man and the widow Reves, and that all but two of 
these were rebaptized." (Backus, History 1, 107.) 
The above statements do not contain a distinct asser- 
tion that Mr. Williams was sprinkled. The word 
"rebaptized" may not positively settle the question 
regarding the act employed ; but in the mouth of 
Governor Winthrop and of Hugh Peters that word 
could hardly point to anything else than to the act 
of sprinkling or pouring. If immersion had been 
employed in the spring of 1639 it seems likely that 
definite allusion would have been made to what was 
at the time an entirely unusual method of adminis- 
tering .the ordinance in England or America. The 
unusual course of Mr. Chauncey in advising the dip- 
ping of infants was plainly indicated ; it is difficult 
to understand why the still more unusual course of 
Williams in practicing the dipping of adults should 
not have been likewise plainly described by the same 
author. The best explanation of this silence on the 
part of Winthrop seems to be found in the fact that 
Mr. Williams did not employ immersion. 

Six years after the baptism of Williams had taken 
place at Providence he published a tract entitled 
Christenings make not Christians, or A Briefe 
Discourse concerning that name Heathen, commonly 



152 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

given to the Indians. As also concerning that great 
point of their Conversion. Published according to 
order. London, Printed by lane Cox, for I. EL, 
1645. This work was recovered by Dr. Dexter at 
the British Museum in March, 1881, and has been 
reprinted as Number XIV. of the Rhode Island His- 
torical Pamphlets. 

When he comes to discuss the conversion of the 
Indians Mr. Williams first describes the wrong 
way to go about it and afterwards the right way. 
The way of the Catholic Church is duly set forth as 
the wrong way. Another wrong way is indicated as 
follows : "Thirdly, for our New England parts, 
I can speake uprightly and confidently, I know 
it to have been easie for my selfe, long ere 
this, to have brought many thousands of these Na- 
tives, yea the whole country to a far greater Anti- 
christian conversion than ever was heard of in 
America. I have reported something in the Chap- 
ter of their Religion, how readily I could have 
brought the whole Country to have observed one day 
in seven ; I adde to have received a Baptisme (or 
washing) though it were in Rivers (as the first Chris- 
tians and the Lord Jesus himselfe did; to have come 
to a stated Church meeting, maintained priests and 
formes of prayer and a whole forme of Antichris- 
tian worship in life and death, (p. 11.)" 

The expression "Baptisme (or washing) though it 
were in Rivers" indicates that this form of the ordi- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 153 

nance was unusual in 1645. In the year 1643 Mr. 
Williams made a visit to England to procure a 
charter for Rhode Island. Here he had found oc- 
casion to become acquainted with immersion that had 
been brought in in 1641. It is evident that he re- 
gards it as something unusual — "though it were in 
Rivers" — yet he concedes that it was what "the 
first Christians and the Lord Jesus himself did." 
But the question before us is whether it was what 
Mr. Williams himself did ? Had he submitted to 
that act in 1639 when he was rebaptized at Provi- 
dence ? Even after he had been enlightened and 
persuaded that the first Christians and the Lord 
Jesus himself were immersed would he then have 
been willing to be immersed himself % Multitudes 
have no scruples whatever in conceding that immer- 
sion was the primitive act of baptism who will not 
recognize the slightest obligation to submit to the 
rite themselves. That is the position of almost the 
entire body of Pedobaptist scholars in European 
countries. These persuade themselves that the 
mode, as they phrase it, is a concern of no conse- 
quence, and hence they claim liberty to alter it if 
they choose. 

After having set forth the wrong method to con- 
vert the Indians Mr. Williams next undertakes to 
describe the right method. He says: "Secondly, 
affirmatively : I answer in generall, A true Conver- 
sion whether of Americans or Europeans must be 



154 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

such as those Conversions were of the first pattern 
either of the Jewes or the Heathens ; That rule is 
the golden Mace wand in the hand of the Angell or 
Messenger, rev. 11.1, beside which all others are 
leaden and crooked. 

In particular: First, it must be by the free pro- 
claiming or preaching of Repentance and forgive- 
nesse of sins, Luke 24, by such as can prove their 
lawfull sending and commission from the Lord Jesus 
to make Disciples out of all nations: and so to bap- 
tize or wash them, efc rd Svofxa, into the name or pro- 
fession of the holy Trinity, Mat. 28.19; Rom. 10.14, 
15." 

In the first citation above Mr. Williams had con- 
ceded that immersion was practiced by the first 
Christians and our Lord, and yet in this place, where 
he is laying down the proper method of converting 
the Indians he ignores immersion entirely. It is 
sufficient to "wash them into the name or profession 
of the holy Trinity" and is not necessary to "wash 
them in rivers" as was indicated above. This sec- 
ond citation appears to prove that Mr. Williams did 
not regard immersion as essential to Christian bap- 
tism. In brief words, he had heard of immersion 
during his visit to England, and possibly had wit- 
nessed the ordinance performed, but he here decides 
against it. He ignored it as decidedly as if no such 
practice had been there introduced anew in the year 
1641. In view of this circumstance it is not easy to 
believe that he had submitted to it in 1639. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 155 

If it should be objected that the phrase "wash 
them into the name or profession of the holy Trin- 
ity" points to immersion, we may reply that this- 
would be a just contention if Mr. Williams had added, 
as in the first instance, some allusion to rivers in 
which the ordinance should take place. He has here 
omitted that specification, apparently of set pur- 
pose. 

The word "wash" that is here made use of is the 
same word as is employed for baptism by the West- 
minster divines in the Larger and Shorter Catechisms 
published in 1648, where it indisputably points to 
sprinkling or pouring. The Larger Catechism reads 
as follows: "What is Baptism? Baptism is a sacra- 
ment of the New Testament wherein Christ hath or- 
dained the washing with water in the name of the 
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost," etc. 
The Shorter Catechism says: "Baptism is a sacra- 
ment wherein the washing with water in the name 
of the Father and of the Son and. of the Holy Ghost, 
doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ," 
etc. Both of these passages are parallel to the one 
before us, and it provides for sprinkling or pouring 
just as certainly as they do. It would hardly be nat- 
ural to suppose that a man who wrote thus in 1645 
had been immersed in 1639. 

If any should urge that Mr. Williams employs the 
expression ' 'wash them, el$ to ovo/xa, into the name or 
profession of the holy Trinity," laying emphasis upon. 



156 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

the preposition "into,'" as indicating that the wash- 
ing was to be done by immersion, that would be an 
unwarranted inference. Mr. Richard Clvfton, the 
well-known Brownist, who always employed sprin- 
kling for baptism, makes use of the same expression 
in his Plea for Infants and Elder People concerning 
their Baptisme (p. 173), as follows: "Without this 
washing with water into the name of the Father, 
etc., it can not be baptisme." (Dexter, True Story, 
p. 25.) Indeed this author also says, Plea for In- 
fants, p. 159: "Concerning the forme of baptism, I 
confess it is the sprinkling of a fit subject with water 
into the name of the Father. 1 ' etc. (Dexter, True 
Story, p. 25.) The circumstance that the preposi- 
tion "into" is employed in the same way after the 
word "sprinkling" as after the word "washing" 
renders it clear that in neither case is immersion the 
necessary or natural meaning. Consequently when 
Mr. Williams declares that to baptize is the same as 
to "wash them into the name or profession of the 
holy Trinity," it appears almost certain that pour- 
ing or sprinkling was the act of baptism which he 
recommends. If he had favored immersion, he 
would most likely have specified that the washing 
should be done in rivers, as he concedes that "the 
first Christians and the Lord himself did." 

The letter to Gov. Winthrop under date of No- 
vember 10, 1649, also suggests that" the baptism of 
Williams in 1639 was not administered by immer- 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 157 

sion. He says: "At Seekonk a great many have- 
lately concurred with Mr. John Clarke and our 
Providence men about the point of a new Baptism 
and the manner by dipping, and Mr. John Clarke 
hath been there lately (and Mr.Lucar) and hath dipped 
them. I believe their practice comes nearer the prac- 
tice of our great Founder, Christ Jesus, than other 
practices of religion do, and yet I have not satisfac- 
tion neither in the authority by which it is done, nor 
in the manner." (Publication of the Narragansett 
Club, vol. vi., p. 188, Providence, 1874.) 

Providence Church under the direction of Will- 
iams had submitted to a baptism in 1639. Newport 
appears to have taken like action under Mr. Clarke 
in 1641, at which time the Congregational Church- 
over which he had for several years presided, went to 
pieces, and Winthrop reports that divers on the Island 
"turned professed Anabaptists." Before 1649 both. 
Mr. John Clarke and the Providence men had "con- 
curred about the point of a new baptism. " The man- 
ner of that new baptism he states was by the uncom- 
mon method of dipping, which suggests pretty 
clearly that the manner of the other baptism had not 
been by dipping. Mr. Williams had no part in the- 
new baptism by dipping, for he expressly describes 
it as "their practice" and not as his own practice, 
.which must have been something very different. 

Mr. Lucar, who had been immersed in 1641 when 
Blunt brought back the rite from Holland (Gould,. 



158 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Introduction, p. cxxiv.), and who may have come to 
Rhode Island when Williams returned with the char- 
ter in 1644, supplies the best solution of all ques- 
tions here involved. Mr. Lucar is supposed in turn 
to have brought immersion to America. In the 
year 1648, according to Hubbard's manuscript he 
was one of fifteen members of Newport Church. 
Prof Newman (History, p. 50) has also called atten- 
tion to Mr. Lucar as a link between the earliest Par- 
ticular Baptist Church in England and the Church 
at Newport. If Mr. Williams had introduced im- 
mersion into New England in 1639, his language 
as cited above is inexplicable. He tacitly yields 
that honor to others by declaring that it was 
a "new Baptism" and that it was "their practice" 
and not his own. The honor of being the first gen- 
uine Baptist on the continent of America appears to 
belong to Mr. Lucar. The men of Providence had 
thought of sending Thomas Olney, the successor of 
Williams in the pastoral office, as far as Hungary to 
obtain the ordinance from immersing Anabaptists in 
that country (Backus, 1,112), but they finally con- 
curred with Mr. John Clarke and they were all im- 
mersed, as is supposed, by Lucar. This may have 
been accomplished in 1644. The manuscript of 
Samuel Hubbard, who joined Newport Church in 
1648, says that the church was formed about 1644 
{Backus 1, pp. 149-50, note). 

Let it be observed that even though he allows 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 159 

that "their practice came nearer the practice of our 
great Founder Christ Jesus than other practices in 
religion do, yet he had no "satisfaction neither in the 
authority by which it is done, nor in the manner." 
Mr. Williams remained only four months with Provi- 
dence Church and then retired because he had 
become a Seeker, or one who looked and sought for 
a prophet divinely commissioned to introduce the 
ordinances anew after the long defection of Anti- 
christ. For that reason he could not be satisfied 
with the authority by which immersion had been 
adopted at Providence and Newport. It is possible 
on the other hand that he could not find satisfaction 
in the manner, for the reason that while he admitted 
that immersion was scriptural and apostolical he 
•could not convince himself that it was essential to 
baptism. At any rate that was the position he occu- 
pied in 1645 when writing his tract entitled Christen- 
ings make not Christians. 

To recapitulate : here are four important contem- 
porary utterances. One of these by Winthrop and 
another by Hugh Peters occurred in the same year in 
which the occurrence took place. Both of these ap- 
pear to testify against immersion, since they used 
no other term but ' 'rebaptized. ' ' A short while after- 
wards when Gov. Winthrop was describing the prac- 
tice of Rev. Charles Chauncey he employs the phrase 
"dipped and not sprinkled," and there can be little 
question that he would have employed it here if Mr. 



160 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

Williams had practiced immersion. The two other 
contemporary utterances are by Mr. Williams him- 
self. That of the year 1645, found in Christen- 
ings make not Christians, appears to show that 
while he conceded immersion was the practice 
of our Lord and the first Christians he did not con- 
sider it essential to baptism. The form of his 
expression also suggests that it was a new and unusual 
custom. It does not seem at all likely that he had sub- 
mitted to it in person in 1630. That conclusion is still 
more apparent from the statement found in the letter to 
Gov.Winthropin 1619, since he there speaks of a "new 
baptism and the manner by dipping," and seems to 
represent that it was the practice in which Mr. John 
Clarke and the Providence men had concurred, hut 
in which he in person had taken no part. All of 
these contemporary utterances are further supported 
by the circumstance that the religious affiliation of 
Mr. Williams prior to 1639 was with a people whose 
sympathy for immersion was notably defective, and 
who at the Westminster Assembly in August, 1611, 
did all that lay in their power to abolish the rite alto- 
gether. He had contentions with his brethren in 
Massachusetts on divers other points, but there is do 
account of his ever contending with their position on 
this point. And finally, the Anabaptists with whom 
he united his fortunes for a period of four months 
had not then adopted immersion in England, and 
there is no reason to suppose that Mr. Williams 
travelled in advance of them in this regard. 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 161 

Over against all this has been set the testimony of 
William Coddington. A man of many changes, 
Mr. Coddington at last turned Quaker, and had be- 
come offended with Mr. Williams for his opposition 
to the advocates of that faith. In 1677, thirty-eight 
years after the event in question, he wrote a choleric 
epistle to George Fox in which he asserts that Wil- 
liams was "one time for water baptism, men and 
women must be plunged into the water; and then 
throw it all down again." (Backus, vol. 1, p. 445.) 

Coddington was not an eyewitness any more than 
were Winthrop and Peters. Newport is almost as 
far from Providence as Boston or Salem. The testi- 
mony of Coddington is not, properly speaking, con- 
temporary testimony as was that of Winthrop and 
Peters. One's memory is capable of becoming con- 
fused in thirty-eight years, and Mr. Coddington's 
memory may have become confused. He may have 
supposed that the immersion of believers was prac- 
ticed in Rhode Island in 1639, because it had been 
practiced since 1644; but that was a violent suppo- 
sition. Robert Burns somewhere says that "six lines 
set down upon the spot are worth a cart load of 
reminiscences." The few lines set down upon the 
spot by Winthrop and Peters are worth a cartload of 
Coddington's confused reminiscences. 

It is to be observed, moreover, that Coddington does 
not distinctly say that Williams was himself immersed, 
but that at one time he favored it. Nor does Cod- 



J 62 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

dington say at what period of Williams' life he held 
to immersion. We have seen that in 1645 (Christ- 
enings make not Christians), which was after his re- 
turn from England, he did have knowledge of immer- 
sion. In 1649 he was not satisfied about the "man- 
ner by dipping.' 1 Hence it can not be proven from 
Coddington's statement that the period referred to 
by him was 1639, which is the only date in Mr. 
Williams' life here under discussion. 

The most reliable tradition on this subject has fol- 
lowed the lead of Winthrop and Peters, rather than 
that of Coddington. William Hubbard in his Gen- 
eral History of New England from the Discovery to 
1680, employs the word "rebaptized" and does not 
speak of immersion. (Backus, vol. 1, p. 106.) 
Cotton Mather in the Magnalia, 1702, mentions the 
"first baptism" and the "last baptism," but he 
knows nothing of dipping in either case (Magnalia, 
vol. 2, p. 432). Kev. John Callender in his His- 
torical Discourse, Boston, 1739, could well afford to 
dodge the question, since at the time when his book 
was published he could not make up his mind 
whether Mr. Williams had ever been connected with 
the Baptists or not. Isaac Backus in his History of 
New England, etc., Boston, 1777, pp. 106-7, fol- 
lows Winthrop, Peters and Hubbard, laying no em- 
phasis upon immersion. The same position is held 
in his later and smaller work published in 1804. 
(Publication Society's ed., Phil., 1844, p. 50.) 



A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 163 

Rev. John Stanford in the records of the First Bap- 
tist Church of Providence, which were prepared in 
1775, does not mention immersion. At any rate, 
Benedict, who claims to have followed these records 
closely (History, New York, 1856, p. 457), employs 
the word baptize, and says nothing about immersion. 
(History, Boston, 1813, vol. 1, p. 475; cf. History, 
New York, 1856, p. 450.) Prof. J. D. Knowles 
(Memoir of Eoger Williams, Boston, 1834, p. 165) 
follows the tradition in using the word baptize, but 
expressions found in other portions of his volume 
show that he understood the word to mean immerse. 
Rev. William Hague in his Historical Discourse, 
Boston, 1839, p. 30, occupies the position of the 
Providence Church Records, making no allusion to 
immersion, and the same is true of Rev. J. M. 
Cramp, Baptist History, Phil., 1868, p. 461. Rev. 
H. M. Dexter, As to Roger Williams, Boston, 1876, 
p. 107; Prof. H. C. Yedder, Short History of the 
Baptists, Phil., 1892, p. 154; Mr. Oscar S. Straus, 
Roger Williams, the Pioneer of Religious Liberty, 
New York, 1894, p. 107, and Rev. H. S. Burrage, 
History of the Baptists in New England, Phil., 1895, 
p. 23, are all in accord with this tradition, since each 
uses the word baptize, and avoids the words dip or 
immerse. 

On the other hand Dr. Armitage, (History of the 
Baptists, New York, 1887, pp. 659-60, boldly ar- 
gues for immersion, and Prof. A. H. Newman of 



164 A QUESTION IN BAPTIST HISTORY. 

McMaster University (History, New York, 1894, p. 
80, note) declares that "contemporary testimony is 
uunanimos in favor of the view that immersion was 
practiced by Williams." The work of Dr. Newman 
is the most scientific and satisfactory that has yet 
been devoted to the history of American Baptists, 
but the language here cited is stronger than the 
facts of the case seem to justify. The only really 
contemporary testimony appears to favor the other 
side. 

In the present state of information it would be 
unwise to pronounce with certainty any conclusion 
regarding this question. However, within the lim- 
its of the uncertainty which is freely acknowledged, 
the weight of evidence appears to incline very 
clearly towards the view that Roger Williams was 
sprinkled and not immersed at Providence in 1639. 




Wm 




